Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Thank you for working on this fix! I think it's quite close to finished, but it needs some additional test coverage. Also, please add a release note about the fix so users know what's going on.
clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
13978–13980 | ||
clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-comma-operator.cpp | ||
151 | Can you also add test cases like: struct S { void mem(); }; typedef void Void; Void typedef_func(); void whatever() { S s; // Member function calls also work as expected. s.mem(), int_func(); // As do lambda calls. []() { return; }(), int_func(); // And we don't get confused about type aliases. typedef_func(), int_func(); // Even function pointers don't confuse us. void (*fp)() = void_func; fp(), int_func(); } |
Address comments.
Thanks a lot for your suggestion, I noticed that the regression test tested both
C and C++, so I split the test mentioned in the comment into two parts.
clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst | ||
---|---|---|
74 | Do we need an NFC commit to unify the format of issues mentioned here? (Maybe it can be scheduled for a later release). The different ways of citing issues here can be confusing. Issue xxxx # xxx in this context. |
LGTM!
clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst | ||
---|---|---|
74 | If we wanted to do something like that, I think we should probably do that as part of the release process as a checklist item (CC @tstellar) but I don't have strong opinions either. We can certainly do it with NFC fixes as folks notice issues if we're fine still having some inconsistency when we release (which I'm fine with, personally). |
Do we need an NFC commit to unify the format of issues mentioned here? (Maybe it can be scheduled for a later release). The different ways of citing issues here can be confusing. Issue xxxx # xxx in this context.