riccibruno added a comment. In D53708#1332868 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53708#1332868>, @martong wrote:
> > This is a perhaps a naive comment, but why is localUncachedLookup used > > instead of noload_lookup ? There is a fixme dating from 2013 stating > > that noload_lookup should be used instead. > > This is not a naive question. I was wondering myself on the very same thing > when I started working on the ASTImporter at 2017. > I think when `noload_lookup` was introduced the author of that function > tried to replace `localUncachedLookup` in ASTImporter, but that broke some > tests. The major difference between the two functions is that the latter can > find declarations even if they are not stored in the `LookupPtr`. This is > rather unusual from the C/C++ point of view of lookup, and not working in all > cases (see the introduction of this patch). Ironically, I can't just get rid > of `localUncachedLookup` because it would break some LLDB test cases. Ah I think I understand. For my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong here): `localUncachedLookup` will first try to do a normal lookup, and if that fails it will try to look in the declarations in the declaration context. Now some declarations (including declarations which are not `NamedDecl` and declarations which matches `shouldBeHidden`) will not be added to the `LookupPtr` (via `makeDeclVisibleInContextWithFlags`) and so will not be found though the normal lookup mechanism. You therefore need to use `localUncachedLookup` to find these. Does this make sense ? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53708/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D53708 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
