mizvekov added a comment.
In D136533#3877854 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533#3877854>, @ychen wrote:
> Looks straightforward to me with one suggestion.
>
> Is the CI fail related?
Yeah, the CI fail is because, while there is a change in libcxx diagnostics and
we fix it, the same tests are run in different pipelines using stock, released
clangs.
So we need a way to handle the difference in expectations. I have pinged libcxx
devs about that.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:2569
+ enum class TypeAccessKind { Explicit, Implicit, Typename };
+ QualType getTypeDeclType(DeclContext *LookupCtx, TypeAccessKind AK,
----------------
ychen wrote:
> I find it hard to understand this enum since it does not correlate with
> wordings well and need to read code in other places to understand what it is
> used for. How about using two parameters: `bool DiagCtor` (replace `AK !=
> TypeAccessKind::Explicit`) and `bool IsImplicitTypename` (replace `AK ==
> TypeAccessKind::Typename`) ?
Hmm, enums are more en vogue :)
How about we:
* Rename `TypeAccessKind` -> `DiagCtorKind`
* Rename `Explicit` -> `None`
?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
