lanza added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGObjC.cpp:466 + for (; begin != end; ++begin) + AppendFirstRuntimeProtocols(*begin, PDs); + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Should this make an effort to avoid declaring redundant bases? e.g. > > ``` > @protocol Base @end > @protocol NonRuntime<Base> @end > @protocol Runtime<Base> @end > @interface MyClass <Runtime, NonRuntime> @end > @implementation MyClass @end > ``` > > Ideally `MyClass` only declares conformance to `Runtime` rather than > redundantly declaring conformance to `Base`, which I think you'd naturally > get from this algorithm. You are right. I fixed this but excluded the case where the declaration explicitly lists in it's `<>` declaration that it does inherit from a protocol. e.g. In the test case: ``` @protocol C @endp @protocol B <C> @end @protocol A <B> @end __attribute__((objc_non_runtime_protocol)) @protocol Alpha<A> @end __attribute__((objc_non_runtime_protocol)) @protocol Beta<B> @end @interface Implementer : Root <Alpha, Beta, C> @end @implementation Implementer @end ``` The non-runtime removing algorithm generates `A,B,C` as the list but B and C are both redundant. It makes sense to remove `B` for that reason but since the declaration explicitly mentions `C` I vote that it makes sense to leave it included as that's what one would expect from a `class_copyProtocolList`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75574/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75574 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
