Fznamznon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/undefined-partial-specialization.cpp:12
+template<typename T>
+void boo<T, true>::foo(){} // expected-error{{nested name specifier 'boo<T,
true>::' for declaration does not refer into a class, class template or class
template partial specialization}}
+
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Fznamznon wrote:
> > erichkeane wrote:
> > > I don't think this is correct. The diagnostic is inaccurate, it DOES
> > > refer to a class template partial specialization (I can see it on line
> > > 9!), but the problem is that it is incomplete.
> > Huh, it seems it was my change that made this diagnostic inaccurate. I was
> > under impression that it shouldn't have done this.
> > For c++17 it used to say "error: out-of-line definition of 'foo' from class
> > 'boo<type-parameter-0-0, true>' without definition" without crash. Now it
> > is inaccurate for both c++17 and c++20. I'll look into this more.
> Yes, I would definitely expect the 'out-of-line-definition' diagnostic, like
> we do for non-partial specs, and the C++17 behavior. Interesting that we've
> messed this up for C++20, should be fun to track down/figure out!
> Interesting that we've messed this up for C++20, should be fun to track
> down/figure out!
`hasReachableDefinition` calls `hasAcceptableDefinition` that early-exits if
support for modules is not required.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148330/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148330
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
