rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:5005
+ if (Member->getInit() && Member->getInit()->containsErrors())
+ Constructor->setInvalidDecl();
if (Member->isBaseInitializer())
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This is inappropriate. The "invalid" bit on a declaration indicates whether
> the declaration is invalid, not whether the definition is invalid.
>
> What we should do is add a "contains errors" bit to `Stmt`, and mark the
> function body as containing errors if it has an initializer that contains an
> error.
As an example of why this distinction matters: the "contains errors" bit
indicates whether external users of the declaration should ignore it / suppress
errors on it, or whether they can still treat it as a regular declaration. It's
not ideal for an error in the body of a function to affect the diagnostic
behavior of a caller to that function, since the body is (typically) irrelevant
to the validity of that caller.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77041/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77041
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
