-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Use suitable TmpltSpec for nondep member type names #16232
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
silverweed
wants to merge
9
commits into
root-project:master
Choose a base branch
from
silverweed:issue7955-type-first-spec-2
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b99c4db
[dictgen] Remove stray inline, fix indent (NFC).
Axel-Naumann 620199a
[cling] CreateNestedNameSpecifierForScopeOf needs specialization cont…
Axel-Naumann f97d39e
[cling] Add basic test for names of non-dependent type members.
Axel-Naumann 8c5b23f
[metacling] Pass specialization context to determine member type name.
Axel-Naumann b94084b
[metacling] Test issue #7955.
Axel-Naumann 69177a0
[metacling] Make TClingMethodInfo::NormalizedName() a proper interface.
Axel-Naumann a7f3d57
[metacling] Refactor to reduce var scope, nesting.
Axel-Naumann 4862b20
[metacling] Handle `A<X>::type A<X>::B<Y>::mem`.
Axel-Naumann aa21d16
[cling] add regression test for issue #7955
silverweed File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like this example breaks some assumptions in this PR.
If you can reproduce that crash with a test using the example that'd be a good step forward.
That is, we introduce a
ClassTemplateSpecializationDeclwhich could be nullptr and yet we will still have a class template. In this line here we get:p cl.getInstantiatedFromMemberClass ()will get us the outer class will still not be the class template specialization decl.I think we are trying to get the template pattern of the outer class asking its nested class and that's probably not a good idea. I am not entirely sure what this pull request intends to do, looks very hacky anyways, you can probably get away by asking if the class is nested.
I think this PR is quite messy and will require a lot of work to make it consistent and mergeable.