[PATCH] D126642: [Clang] NFCI: Repurpose HasExtParameterInfos for HasExtraBitfields

[Erich Keane via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

erichkeane added a comment.

I'm not sure I'm grokking hte difference between the ExtraBitfields and ExtParamInfos here.  Also, the 'hasBitfields' seems like the answer should just be 'no' in the case when its 'no'...



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h:4103
   bool hasExtraBitfields() const {
-    return hasExtraBitfields(getExceptionSpecType());
+    assert((getExceptionSpecType() != EST_Dynamic ||
+            FunctionTypeBits.HasExtraBitfields) &&
----------------
Why is asking if we DO have extra bitfields an assert here?  I would think this is a valid question...

Why would 'dynamic' and extra-bitfields be exclusive here?


================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp:3219
+    ExtraBits = FunctionTypeExtraBitfields();
+  } else
+    FunctionTypeBits.HasExtraBitfields = false;
----------------
this else should have braces, since the 'if' above does. (nit).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D126642/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D126642