hubert-reinterpretcast wrote: > Can we find a way to re-use the code between this and the actual lookup code? > Feels like we could have some sort of predicate like > `doesLookupResultSuppressADL(NamedDecl*)`. Or are we forced to use slightly > different predicates for some compatibility reason?
`Sema::UseArgumentDependentLookup` in `clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp` seems to have similar logic; but, in the context of the name mangler, we take advantage of whether `Sema` created an `UnresolvedLookupExpr` (including whether `Sema` applied overload resolution to a case where the call is not dependent). Furthermore, considering the planned `ClangABICompat` change and the possible impact of CWG 2946 (e.g., mangling class-scope lookup results for friend declarations), I think the flow of the logic will diverge such that attempting to share a predicate now would not help. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114884 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
