rsmith added a comment.
In D78760#2005874 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78760#2005874>, @ahatanak wrote:
> `TagDecl::isDependentType()` is returning true.
Oh, sorry, we do already do the thing I was suggesting. But in your testcase
the issue is that the base class `B0` is dependent but is also resolved during
template instantiation to a (dependent) class type. We should handle this by
skipping dependent base classes, not by skipping incomplete base classes. For
example, consider this testcase (which currently asserts):
struct A {};
template<typename T> struct X {
struct B : A {};
struct C : A, B {};
};
here, we can resolve the `B` base of `C` to the member `C` of the current
instantiation, but we should not traverse to `B`'s base class list when
considering the base classes of `C`, because we do not know that that
definition of `B` will be used by any particular instantiation of `C`. For
example:
template<> struct X<int>::B {};
X<int>::C c; // has only one `A` base class
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78760/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78760
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
