================
@@ -6082,6 +6082,22 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema &Self,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
Self.Diag(Rhs->getTypeLoc().getBeginLoc(), diag::err_vla_unsupported)
<< 1 << tok::kw___is_layout_compatible;
return Self.IsLayoutCompatible(LhsT, RhsT);
+ }
+ case BTT_IsPointerInterconvertibleBaseOf: {
+ if (!LhsT->isUnionType() && !RhsT->isUnionType() &&
+ !Self.getASTContext().hasSameUnqualifiedType(LhsT, RhsT)) {
+ Self.RequireCompleteType(Rhs->getTypeLoc().getBeginLoc(), RhsT,
+ diag::err_incomplete_type);
+ }
+
+ if (LhsT->isVariableArrayType())
+ Self.Diag(Lhs->getTypeLoc().getBeginLoc(), diag::err_vla_unsupported)
+ << 1 << tok::kw___is_pointer_interconvertible_base_of;
+ if (RhsT->isVariableArrayType())
+ Self.Diag(Rhs->getTypeLoc().getBeginLoc(), diag::err_vla_unsupported)
+ << 1 << tok::kw___is_pointer_interconvertible_base_of;
----------------
Endilll wrote:
> Do we need these checks? Is there a reason we can’t just ‘fall through’ here
> if the types are VLAs?
My perspective is "we need less VLA extensions", and from this point of view
those checks are beneficial.
> but in this case this is about base classes, and since a VLA isn’t a class
> type to begin with, just returning false would make sense imo.
This type trait accepts a broader set of types than just class types, so it's
not just about types that might participate in inheritance.
CC @erichkeane
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88473
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
