aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D107292#2923261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2923261>, @cjdb wrote:
> Patch 2: expressions
>
> xor {}
> bitand x // warning will suggest std::addressof in C++ land
> and label
An additional expression to cover, not that I think anyone would be this awful
by accident, is: `foo->compl Foo(); // Pseudo-destructor call`
One question I have about both declarations and expressions are whether we have
an appetite to diagnose overloaded operators or not. Personally, I think it'd
be reasonable to diagnose something like `foo->operator bitand();` or `operator
not_eq(A, B);` as expressions, but not reasonable to diagnose the declaration
of the overloaded operators using alternative tokens.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:5830-5832
+ constexpr int Caret = 3;
+ constexpr int Empty = 2;
+ constexpr int BlockPointers = 2;
----------------
We typically either use comments for one-off uses, or we hoist this sort of
thing to an enumeration associated with the diagnostic if we think the
diagnostic will be used in enough places to warrant it. I think we should
probably stick to comments for this one (e.g., `Diag(Loc, diag::whatever) <<
/*frobble*/1;`, but if you think a hoisted enum is a better approach I won't
argue it.
(Same comment applies elsewhere in the patch.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
