Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@12bitfloat I'm pretty sure that's because of old C rules assuming things are int. Someone please double-check though
-
@BordedDev If there's no type, the default is int I believe
But if you actually have a parameter of type ExampleBase*... can you just replace that with int*??? -
@Demolishun This isn't in code really, it's when you run `clang -Xclang -ast-dump=json -fsyntax-only` to get a json dump of the ast
-
@12bitfloat oh. I thought it was transforming types or something.
-
@Demolishun Well, it is... in the ast at least
-
@Demolishun lol
-
@retoor llvm master race!
-
@12bitfloat haha so is clang worth it ?
-
@AvatarOfKaine Clang is good, this was just a very niche thing
-
@AvatarOfKaine objects in a computer program are hallucination of the programmer. Once it is machine code there is no concept of objects anymore. It becomes pointers, data, and instructions. If the code generates correctly it works and does what you want.
Found this in our codebase, apparently one of my co-workers had written this
I just had the most confusing error ever where clang ast randomly replaced classes with just int in type signatures
...wat? I guess the class only has one int field so maybe there's a cpp rule that requires replacing classes with their only field or something?
But when I add other fields it doesn't change. Even if the class has no int fields, it's still replaced by int in the ast
....
Yeah turns out I had the definitions in the wrong order and clang just uses int for unknown types instead of... you know maybe raising a fucking error
Thanks clang...
rant
wtf