kadircet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/include-cleaner/unittests/WalkASTTest.cpp:163
ElementsAre(Decl::ClassTemplatePartialSpecialization));
+ // Incomplete templates don't have a specific specialization associated.
+ EXPECT_THAT(testWalk(R"cpp(
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> There's no incomplete template here (did you mean `template <typename struct
> Foo;` or `template <typename T> struct Foo<T*>;`?)
>
> If it's enough that the template is never instantiated then maybe it's still
> clearer not to provide a definition (and tweak the comment slightly?)
> If it's enough that the template is never instantiated then maybe it's still
> clearer not to provide a definition (and tweak the comment slightly?)
right, i meant the instantiation being "incomplete", not the template-decl
itself. dropping the definition and updating the comment
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148158/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148158
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
