[PATCH] D136815: [clang][Interp] Unify visiting variable declarations

[Shafik Yaghmour via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

shafik added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeExprGen.h:282
+  bool isGlobalDecl(const VarDecl *VD) const {
+    return !VD->hasLocalStorage() || VD->isConstexpr();
+  }
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> shafik wrote:
> > tbaeder wrote:
> > > shafik wrote:
> > > > Why not `hasGlobalStorage()`?
> > > > 
> > > > Also what is the logic behind `isConstexpr()` check?
> > > Didn't know `isGlobalStorage()` existed ;)
> > > 
> > > Constexpr local variables can be handled like global ones, can't they? That was the logic behind it, nothing else. We can save ourselves the hassle of local variables in that case.
> > I think I am missing a level of logic here. I don't think of constant expressions as needing storage nor do I think of them as global variables.
> > 
> > So can you take a step back and explain how this fits in the bigger picture?
> They don't necessarily need storage in the final executable but we create global/local variables for them for bookkeeping, e.g. we need to be able to take their address, track the value, etc.
Ok, will this work for recursive `constexpr` functions with local variables?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D136815/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D136815