jkorous marked an inline comment as done.
jkorous added a comment.
Volodymyr, could you please confirm that the non-anonymous vs non-inline logic
makes sense to you?
================
Comment at: Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4659-4661
+ (isa<TranslationUnitDecl>(OwnerScope) ||
+ (isa<NamespaceDecl>(OwnerScope) &&
+ cast<NamespaceDecl>(OwnerScope)->getDeclName()))) {
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> vsapsai wrote:
> > Checked if we need to do the same change s/Owner/OwnerScope/ elsewhere in
> > this method and looks like it is not required. We care if the owner is a
> > Record and we don't allow linkage specification in classes, so skipping
> > linkage scopes doesn't give us anything.
> While you're here, `OwnerScope->isFileContext() &&
> !OwnerScope->isInlineNamespace()` might be clearer. Or at least replace the
> `getDeclName()` with `!isInlineNamespace()`.
I'd like to explicitly flag this - we are interested in non-anonymous
namespaces not non-inline namespaces, right?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45884
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
