mizvekov added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Serialization/ASTWriterDecl.cpp:623-626 + VisitDeclaratorDecl(D); + Record.AddDeclarationNameLoc(D->DNLoc, D->getDeclName()); + Record.push_back(D->getIdentifierNamespace()); + ---------------- ChuanqiXu wrote: > mizvekov wrote: > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > mizvekov wrote: > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > > > mizvekov wrote: > > > > > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > > > > > I still don't get the reason for the move. What's the > > > > > > > > > benefit? Or why is it necessary? > > > > > > > > Yeah, now the type can reference the template decl, so without > > > > > > > > moving this, it can happen during import of the type that we > > > > > > > > try to read this function template bits without having imported > > > > > > > > them yet. > > > > > > > Oh, I guess I met the problem before (D129748 ) and I made a > > > > > > > workaround for it (https://reviews.llvm.org/D130331). If I > > > > > > > understood right, the patch will solve that problem. I'll check > > > > > > > it out later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (This kind of code move looks dangerous you know and I'll take a > > > > > > > double check) > > > > > > After looking into the detailed change for the serialization part, > > > > > > I feel it is a not-so-good workaround indeed.. It looks like we > > > > > > need a better method to delay reading the type in the serializer. > > > > > > And I'm looking at it. @mizvekov would you like to rebase the > > > > > > series of patches to the main branch so that I can test it actually. > > > > > Or would it be simpler to rebase and squash them into a draft > > > > > revision? > > > > I had given this some thought, and it made sense to me that we should > > > > deal with the template bits first, since these are closer to the > > > > introducer for these declarations, and so that it would be harder to > > > > have a dependence the other way around. > > > > > > > > But I would like to hear your thoughts on this after you have taken a > > > > better look. > > > > I am working on a bunch of things right now, I should be able to rebase > > > > this on the next few days, but otherwise > > > > I last rebased about 4 days ago, so you can also check that out at > > > > https://github.com/mizvekov/llvm-project/tree/resugar > > > > That link has the whole stack, you probably should check out just the > > > > commit for this patch, as you are probably going to encounter issues > > > > with the resugarer if you try it on substantial code bases. > > > > It will carry other changes with it, but I think those should be safe. > > > I won't say it is bad to deal with template bits first. I just feel it is > > > a workaround to avoid the circular dependent problem in deserialization. > > > Or in another word, here the method works due to you put some decls* in > > > the template parameter types. And we avoid the circular dependent problem > > > by adjusting the order we deserializes. The reasons why I don't feel it > > > is good include: > > > (1) Although we touched template function decl and template var decl, we > > > don't touched template var decl. I guess it'll be a problem now or later. > > > (2) The solution here can't solve the similar circular dependent problem > > > I sawed in attributes. So the method only workarounds some resulting of > > > the same problem. > > > > > > Or in one shorter explanation, it should be greater to solve the root > > > problems. I have an idea and I am going to to do a proof-of-concept > > > implementation first since I feel like nobody are happy about an > > > unimplementable idea. Generally I don't like to block patches due to such > > > reasons since it is completely not your fault but I guess it may be > > > better to wait some time. Since if we want to allow workarounds first and > > > clear the workarounds, things will be harder. If you want a timeline, I > > > guess 2 months may be reasonable choices. I mean if I can't make it in 2 > > > months and other reviewers feel this is good (what I am seeing), I feel > > > bad to block this. (But if we're more patient, it'll be better). How do > > > you think about this? > > Well we touch FunctionTemplates and VariableTemplates in this patch, > > because they were not doing template first. > > For whatever reason, class templates were already doing template first, so > > no need to fix that. > > > > So this patch at least puts that into consistency. > > > > Also, this patch is a pre-requisite for the template resugaring > > specialization project I am working on, and the deadline for the whole > > project is about two months from now. > > > > If I leave merging this patch until the end, it seems impossible that I > > will finish in time, as we will leave field testing this to the very end. > > > > So while I understand the need for a better approach, it is indeed putting > > me in an impossible situation. > > Also, this patch is a pre-requisite for the template resugaring > > specialization project I am working on, and the deadline for the whole > > project is about two months from now. > > What is the deadline you're referring? According to > https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html, the next release branch will be > in January. > > > So while I understand the need for a better approach, it is indeed putting > > me in an impossible situation. > > I see. I understand it is bad to make perfect the enemy of better. I'll try > to give a faster response. > What is the deadline you're referring? According to > https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html, the next release branch will be > in January. This is a GSoC that is fast becoming a GWoC, since it has been extended to the maximum possible amount of time already. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
