Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTemplate.cpp:265
+ // We don't use `SuppressAccessChecks` here because
+ // it supresses ALL the dignostics kinds, but we need to keep some of them.
+ // For instance marked as unavailable:
----------------
Spelling: /supresses/suppresses/, /dignostics kinds/kinds of diagnostics/
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/class.access/class.friend/p1.cpp:290
A::I f2(A::I i = A::x) {} // expected-error 3 {{is a private member of}}
- template<typename T> A::I g2(A::I i) { // expected-error 2 {{is a private
member of}}
+ template <typename T> A::I g2(A::I i) { // expected-error {{is a private
member of}}
T t;
----------------
This whitespace diff is gratuitous.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/class.access/class.friend/p1.cpp:294
+ template <> A::I g2<char>(A::I i) { return 0; } // expected-error {{is a
private member of}}
template A::I g2<A::I>(A::I i);
}
----------------
IMHO it would make sense to add several other variations here too:
```
template <> A::I g2<char>(A::I i); // expected-error {{is a private member of}}
template <> int g2<A::I>(int i); // expected-error??
template <> A::I g2<A::I*>(A::I i); // expected-error??
template A::I g2<char>(A::I i); // expected-error {{is a private member of}}
template int g2<A::I**>(int i); // OK
template A::I g2<A::I***>(A::I i); // OK??
```
It might also be better to use a well-formed template `template<class> int
g3(int) { return 0; }` instead of `g2` for the explicit specializations, and to
use yet another template `template<class> int g4(int) { return 0; }` instead of
`g2` for the explicit instantiation declarations. That way there's no
accidental "cross-talk" between the various declarations that might affect what
diagnostics get printed.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.spec/part.spec.cpp:10
+
+// class for tests
+class TestClass {
----------------
I wonder if this test can be shortened and/or removed, now that you're not
doing weird parser tricks that need exhaustive testing. E.g. at least the stuff
with the `final` keyword could be removed now, right?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
