hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:1230
LookupResult Result(*this, Name, NameLoc, LookupOrdinaryName);
return BuildDeclarationNameExpr(SS, Result, /*ADL=*/true);
}
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> wonder if if the results of setting AcceptInvalidDecl here would be good/bad?
> (happy with in this patch/separate one/not at all, just curious)
>
> Also possible candidates are the calls in:
> - Sema::ActOnIdExpression
> - Sema::BuildQualifiedDeclarationNameExpr
> - Sema::BuildPossibleImplicitMemberExpr
> - BuildRecoveryCallExpr in SemaOverload
>
yeah, this is interesting. we need to try it and see how well it goes. I will
follow-up after this patch.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:3478
+ if (VD->isInvalidDecl() && E)
+ return CreateRecoveryExpr(E->getBeginLoc(), E->getEndLoc(), {E});
+ return E;
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> This means we're changing the AST returned for existing
> `AcceptInvalidDecl=true` callers, right?
>
> I think this is just attemptRecovery() in SemaCXX.cpp, which is part of typo
> correction. Previously we might transforming typos into DeclRefExpr to
> invalid, but now we're transforming them to RecoveryExpr wrapping DeclExpr to
> invalid.
>
> This seems sensible, but I'm a little concerned there are no test changes for
> it. Is it possible to construct one?
>
> I kind of expected this to work:
> ```
> m *foo;
> void z() {
> goo;
> }
> ```
> but in fact we produce an opaque RecoveryExpr (with no DeclRefExpr) inside
> today.
you're right. Added one testcase for the typo correction case.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121599/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121599
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
