2016-03-29 1:08 GMT+06:00 Serge Pavlov <sepavl...@gmail.com>:
> 2016-03-18 20:50 GMT+06:00 Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>:
>
>> rsmith added a comment.
>>
>> Can we instead not add the function to the redeclaration chain until it's
>> instantiated (like we do if it's dependent)?
>>
>>
> I prepared implementation that uses this approach. In this variant
> information about potential definitions is lost, in some cases it makes
> difficult to make analysis. For instance we can diagnose misfit of
> declarations in the code:
> ```
> void func9(int); // expected-note{{previous declaration is here}}
> template<typename T> struct C9a {
> friend int func9(int); // expected-error{{functions that differ only in
> their return type cannot be overloaded}}
> };
> ```
> but not in the case:
> ```
> template<typename T> struct C9a {
> friend int func9(int);
> };
> void func9(int);
> ```
> Otherwise both approaches seem almost equivalent.
>
It looks like this is not an issue. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16579
dependent friend are stored in a set for subsequent analysis. Nothing
prevents from using the same approach for all friend functions.
Thanks,
--Serge
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
