[cfe-commits] r62003 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/AST/Decl.h include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticKinds.def lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp test/SemaCXX/virtuals.cpp

[Sebastian Redl]

Douglas Gregor wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
>
>> -
>> +
>> +  bool isVirtual() { return IsVirtual; }
>> +  void setVirtual() { IsVirtual = true; }
>> +
>> +  bool isPure() { return IsPure; }
>> +  void setPure() { IsPure = true; }
>> +
>
> Could you add some documentation for these? Just a sentence or two
> would suffice.
>

Will do.

>> +      // not static member. perhaps virtual function?
>> +      if (CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(Member)) {
>> +        IntegerLiteral *IL;
>> +        if ((IL = dyn_cast<IntegerLiteral>(Init)) && IL->getValue()
>> == 0 &&
>> +            Context.getCanonicalType(IL->getType()) == Context.IntTy) {
>
> I'm not so sure about this. Can't the parser parse a pure-specifier
> differently from a normal initializer, so it can check for '= 0'
> rather than having semantical analysis try to dissect an
> already-analyzed expression? We'll need to handle this kind of syntax
> on the parser anyway to deal with C++0x's "= delete" and "= default".

I had a comment along those lines in there originally. However, it's not
easy - it means that during declarator parsing, the parser would need to
keep track of whether the result is a function - typedefs for functions
and function pointers don't count!
GCC does it by analyzing the initializer too, judging from the error
messages (try compiling the test case with GCC).
Yes, it would be better, and I can re-add the fixme. But I just don't
see a good way of doing it.
default is easy, because it's not a valid part of an expression. delete
is tricky, but we could probably get away with treating it specially
because its type is void and it's not allowed on the right side of an
assignment anyway.

Sebastian