arphaman marked an inline comment as done.
arphaman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37341#869042, @vsapsai wrote:
> Does your fix work for deeper nesting too (e.g. template in template in
> template)? Looks like it should, just want to confirm.
Yes.
> Are there other places where you need to avoid calling
> `DeduceTemplateArguments` due to templates depth mismatch?
> `CheckDependentFunctionTemplateSpecialization` should be OK as it's not
> deducing template arguments. But I'm not sure about
> `CheckMemberSpecialization`. It doesn't call `DeduceTemplateArguments`
> directly but I haven't dug deep enough to confirm it's not performing
> deduction indirectly.
The problem only seems to happen when the TPL is fabricated. I didn't see other
potential places where such an issue might happen.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:8880-8881
<< NewFD->getDeclName();
- } else if (CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(NewFD,
+ } else if (!HasFabricatedTemplateSpecializationTemplateParams &&
+ CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(NewFD,
(HasExplicitTemplateArgs ? &TemplateArgs
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> Will something more general like
>
> !NewFD->isInvalidDecl() && CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(...)
>
> work here? Because if matching template parameters to scope specifier fails,
> `NewFD` is marked as invalid decl and seems like we can use that.
Yeah, good idea.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37341
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
