simon.giesecke added a comment. In D115106#3180439 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115106#3180439>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D115106#3172949 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115106#3172949>, > @simon.giesecke wrote: > >> Thanks a lot for addressing this issue! I am just trying it on our codebase. >> >>> The problem actually has nothing to do with the out-of-line definition >>> being inline; the problem is that hasDeclaration() of the memberExpr() will >>> match the out-of-line definition, which obviously isn't marked static, so >>> isStaticStorageClass() won't match. >> >> Hm, an out-of-line definition *cannot* have the `static` keyword. I wonder >> if it's actually a bug (in the AST? or just the matcher?) that >> `isStaticStorageClass` doesn't match here? I guess that other checks that >> use `isStaticStorageClass` might be affected by this too? > > `isStaticStorageClass()` calls through to `FunctionDecl::getStorageClass()` > which reports the storage as written on that declaration in source. So this > isn't a bug in the AST, it's a more of a misunderstanding of whether we're > querying the storage duration/linkage for the method or whether we're > querying whether it was written with the static keyword. I see, makes sense. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115106/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115106 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
