hokein added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Index/Core/index-instantiated-source.cpp:103 +// explicit instantiations. +template class Foo<float>; +Foo<float> t3; ---------------- kadircet wrote: > yes this is an explicit instantiation and will have TSKKind set properly. > > but i was talking about an explicit specialization in the example above, i.e: > > ``` > template <> class Foo<float>; > ``` > > which will still have `TSK_Undeclared` (I believe, haven't checked). > > > and let me make myself clear, I am not opposed to the idea of making this > also a ref to the primary template instead of the specialization, I just want > to make sure we spell it out in the comments and tests explicitly. Added an explicit specialization declaration (but not definition) case. In this case, the TSK_Kind is ` TSK_ExplicitSpecialization`, so the result is `SpecializationDecl`. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Index/Core/index-instantiated-source.cpp:104 +template class Foo<float>; +Foo<float> t3; +// CHECK: [[@LINE-1]]:1 | class(Gen)/C++ | Foo | c:@N@index_specialization@ST>1#T@Foo | <no-cgname> | Ref,RelCont | rel: 1 ---------------- kadircet wrote: > this is not valid, as you can't define a variable of incomplete type, this > needs to be in a function declaration (as I provided in the example) or you > can also try making this a pointer as you did below. > > i.e.: > > ``` > void foo(Foo<float>); > ``` This is valid code, as this is an explicit instantiation (I thought you meat explicit instantiation). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74830/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74830 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
