[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cfe-commits
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] D11789: Modify DeclaratorChuck::getFunction to be passed an Exception Specification Sour
From:       Nathan Wilson <nwilson20 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-08-06 2:28:41
Message-ID: 365ad7e47337ff1e1fcd789b580341c2 () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

nwilson added a comment.

I'll make the fixes based on the comments, but had question about the \
FunctionTypeInfo in the meantime.


================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7447-7450
@@ -7446,1 +7446,6 @@
 
+      if (const FunctionProtoType *FPT = R->getAs<FunctionProtoType>()) {
+        if (FPT->hasExceptionSpec()) {
+          auto LocBeg = D.getFunctionTypeInfo().getExceptionSpecLocBeg();
+          auto LocEnd = D.getFunctionTypeInfo().getExceptionSpecLocEnd();
+          Diag(LocBeg, diag::err_function_concept_exception_spec)
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This will assert if there isn't a `FunctionTypeInfo` for the declaration, which can \
> theoretically happen if it's declared via an (ill-formed today) `typedef`. (It also \
> might not provide a source range if the exception specification is implicit, for \
> instance because the function template is a destructor or deallocation function, \
> but passing an empty SourceRange to the FixItHint should just result it in being \
> ignored.)
Hmm, I'm not sure if we'd run into that case because I don't believe we can have a \
`concept` specified as a typedef (check is yet to be added) and a check exists for \
being in a non-namespace scope. Do you think a check should still be added verifying \
that the FunctionTypeInfo exists?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D11789



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]