ChuanqiXu added a comment. > I think I have a preference to move it to CodeGenCXX anyway however, since > we're actually testing the code-generated output (this is not novel, we DO > often use CodeGen tests to make sure proper overloads/etc get called).
It makes sense. Done. Thanks for reviewing! ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:152 `Issue 42372 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/42372>`_. - Clang shouldn't lookup allocation function in global scope for coroutines in case it found the allocation function name in the promise_type body. ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > I realize it isn't part of this patch, but this release note reads > awkwardly... How about: > > > > > Clang will now find and emit a call to an allocation function in a > > promise_type body for coroutines. Additionally, to implement CWG2585, a > > coroutine will no longer generate a call to a global allocation function > > with the signature (std::size_t, p0, ..., pn). > > This fixes Issue `Issue 54881 > > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54881>`_. > > The suggested wording lacks a condition that we generate a call to allocation function in promise_type only if there is an allocation function name in the scope of promise_type. I try to add a condition based on your suggestions. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126187/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126187 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
