================
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++20 %s
+
+namespace GH49093 {
+ class B {
+ public:
+ static int a() { return 0; } // expected-note {{member is declared here}}
+ decltype(a< 0 >(0)) test; // expected-error {{member 'a' used before
its declaration}}
----------------
a-tarasyuk wrote:
> I think it generally DOES make sense to try the lookup?
In the case of viable functions, the checker tries to recover even when the
candidate list is empty.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/416c3ce0138ff4039dab13ff634ee6392b9a3c7b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp#L14056-L14059
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/416c3ce0138ff4039dab13ff634ee6392b9a3c7b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp#L13844-L13857
Once the lookup is complete
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df935ff4eca91013553edbf3ca1d45b568f6709f/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp#L2471
It identifies the expression as a dependent member
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df935ff4eca91013553edbf3ca1d45b568f6709f/clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp#L2490
This is the entry point for these kinds of names, where we can try to stop the
recovery process that causes the crash. Or should we skip building recovery
call expression entirely for such cases?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107786
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
