ayzhao marked an inline comment as done.
ayzhao added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:4321
+ isCXXDeclarationSpecifier(ITC_Never, TPResult::True) !=
+ TPResult::True) ||
+ (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus && !isDeclarationSpecifier(ITC_Yes))) {
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Rakete1111 wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > It seems like a wording oversight that we don't assume `typename` in an
> > > //enum-base//. Probably would be good to raise this on the core reflector.
> > Do you know why this isn't allowed in `operator` ids?
> There's already been discussion of that on the core reflector, and people
> seem to agree it's an oversight in the wording. If you want to accept that
> here, I think that's fine, under the assumption that this will be fixed by
> DR. (If you want to follow the wording-as-moved, that's fine too.)
> It seems like a wording oversight that we don't assume `typename` in an
> //enum-base//. Probably would be good to raise this on the core reflector.
Marking this as done for now; this patch currently returns an error if
`typename` is assumed in an //enum-base//.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
