shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiate.cpp:746
+ diag::note_template_class_instantiation_here)
+ << CTD << Active->InstantiationRange;
} else {
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This diagnostic won't include the template arguments that we're using to
> instantiate, which seems like important information.
>
> Do you know where we're creating the `InstantiatingTemplate` instance
> corresponding to this diagnostic? Usually we pass in the declaration whose
> definition we're instantiating for a `TemplateInstantiation` record; I wonder
> if we could do the same for this case.
This is happening in `Sema::ActOnCallExpr` here:
```cpp
// Diagnose uses of the C++20 "ADL-only template-id call" feature in earlier
// language modes.
if (auto *ULE = dyn_cast<UnresolvedLookupExpr>(Fn)) {
if (ULE->hasExplicitTemplateArgs() &&
ULE->decls_begin() == ULE->decls_end()) {
Diag(Fn->getExprLoc(), getLangOpts().CPlusPlus20
? diag::warn_cxx17_compat_adl_only_template_id
: diag::ext_adl_only_template_id)
<< ULE->getName();
}
}
```
if I check:
```console
expr CodeSynthesisContexts->rbegin()->Entity
```
That is indeed the `ClassTemplateDecl` and we do have `MultiExprArg ArgExprs`
there as well.
The call right before this `TemplateInstantiator::RebuildCallExpr`
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx1z-copy-omission.cpp:193
+template<typename A3>
+class B3 : A3 // expected-error {{expected '{' after base class list}}
+ template<bool = C3<B3>()> // expected-warning 2{{use of function template
name with no prior declaration in function call with explicit}}
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Do you need to omit the `{` here as part of this test? This will cause
> problems for people editing the file due to mismatched braces, and makes this
> test fragile if our error recovery changes. It's best for the test case to be
> free of errors other than the one(s) being exercised. (Same for missing `;`
> errors below.)
>
> If these errors are necessary to trigger the bug you found, I wonder if
> there's a problem with our error recovery. (Maybe we create a "bad"
> `InstantiatingTemplate` record during error recovery, for example.)
They are not needed to trigger the issue, I removed them. I was torn about how
faithful to remain to the original test case.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148474/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148474
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
