pengfei added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmtAttr.cpp:186
void VisitCallExpr(const CallExpr *E) { FoundCallExpr = true; }
+ void VisitAsmStmt(const AsmStmt *S) { FoundCallExpr = true; }
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> xbolva00 wrote:
> > pengfei wrote:
> > > xbolva00 wrote:
> > > > This is totally wrong, just big hack to smuggle it here.
> > > Could you explain more? Is there any unexpect sideeffect by this?
> > It looks unfortunate to have something like AsmStmt in "CallExprFinder"
> > with CallExpr as reference to clang's CallExpr.
> >
> > Kinda surprised that your list of reviewers missed ALL known clang
> > developers/code owner, in this case especially @aaron.ballman .
> Yeah, I would have expected that something named `CallExprFinder` would only
> find call expressions, not use of inline assembly. The class now seems to be
> misnamed and that may be surprising to users. This is then being built on top
> of by things like https://reviews.llvm.org/D119061.
>
> I'm not certain what a reasonable name for the class is given that we now
> want to use it for different purposes.
Thanks @xbolva00 and @aaron.ballman for the input!
I added it to suppress the diagnosis and it's OK since it's the only use of the
class at that time. I'm fine with the change on D119061.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
