iains added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:15265
FD->getFormalLinkage() == Linkage::ExternalLinkage &&
- !FD->isInvalidDecl() && BodyKind != FnBodyKind::Delete &&
+ !FD->isInvalidDecl() && !IsFnTemplate && BodyKind != FnBodyKind::Delete
&&
BodyKind != FnBodyKind::Default && !FD->isInlined()) {
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> iains wrote:
> > iains wrote:
> > > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > > iains wrote:
> > > > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > > > Would it make sense to use `!isa<FunctionTemplateDecl>(D)` here
> > > > > > instead of adding `IsFnTemplate`?
> > > > > > Would it make sense to use `!isa<FunctionTemplateDecl>(D)` here
> > > > > > instead of adding `IsFnTemplate`?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have changed this to use FD->isTemplated() to match the changes for
> > > > > VarDecls - where the template decl is not available. Would it be
> > > > > better to use the isa<>() ?
> > > > >
> > > > It looks not bad to me to use `isTemplated ()`. And it looks like
> > > > `!FD->isTemplateInstantiation()` is not tested? And it looks a little
> > > > bit odd since the instantiated template should be implicitly inline.
> > > > It looks not bad to me to use `isTemplated ()`.
> > >
> > > Hmm. now I am not sure what you prefer; in a previous review there was an
> > > objection to not using the provided function in the decl class.
> > >
> > > What would be your suggestion here?
> > >
> > > (we cannot use isa<VarTemplateDecl> when testing the variables case
> > > because the caller pulls out the templated decl before we get to test it)
> > > - so it is more consistent (IMO) to use the same interface in both tests.
> > >
> > > >And it looks like `!FD->isTemplateInstantiation()` is not tested?
> > >
> > > Please could you expand a bit on what you mean here?
> > > (the test is clearly required, in practice)
> > >
> > > > And it looks a little bit odd since the instantiated template should be
> > > > implicitly inline.
> > >
> > > Did you see @dlaikie's comment on this topic above?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Did you see @dlaikie's comment on this topic above?
> >
> > sorry @dblaikie 's comment is in the PR
> > (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60079#issuecomment-1406856501)
> > What would be your suggestion here?
>
> I prefer `isTemplated ()` here. If I get things correct, `isTemplated ()`
> will cover the case that a non-template function decl inside a function
> template. And `isa<FunctionTemplateDecl>(D)` wouldn't handle the case.
> According to my understanding problem, we should avoid all the dependent
> cases.
>
> > Please could you expand a bit on what you mean here?
>
> I mean I didn't find function template instantiation in tests of this
> revision page.
>
> > sorry @dblaikie 's comment is in the PR
> > (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60079#issuecomment-1406856501)
>
> oh, this is because the inconsistent use of `inline` in different places..
> this may be the price we need to pay.
> > Please could you expand a bit on what you mean here?
>
> I mean I didn't find function template instantiation in tests of this
> revision page.
added.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142704/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142704
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
