rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
A couple of comment nits, then this LGTM. Thanks!
> SemaDecl.cpp:8659-8664
> + // void func();
> + // template<typename T> class C1 { friend void func() { } };
> + // template<typename T> class C2 { friend void func() { } };
> + // and
> + // template<typename T> class C1 { friend void func(); };
> + // template<typename T> class C2 { friend int func(); };
We accept the second example without your change, and never get here (because
we never find a `PrevDecl`). Just remove that one? The first example alone is
enough.
> SemaDeclCXX.cpp:13770-13774
> + if (!Previous.empty()) {
> Diag(FD->getLocation(),
> diag::err_friend_decl_with_def_arg_redeclared);
> - Diag(OldFD->getLocation(), diag::note_previous_declaration);
> + Diag(Previous.getRepresentativeDecl()->getLocation(),
> + diag::note_previous_declaration);
> } else if (!D.isFunctionDefinition())
This is a bit of a weird thing to do, so please add a comment here explaining
why we're not just looking at `getPreviousDecl()`. Something like:
"We can't look at FD->getPreviousDecl() because it may not have been set if
we're in a dependent context. If we get this far with a non-empty Previous set,
we must have a valid previous declaration of this function."
https://reviews.llvm.org/D16989
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
