sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
thanks, that looks better to me
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/TemplateName.cpp:193
+ } else {
+ assert(!getAsOverloadedTemplate() &&
+ "overloaded templates shouldn't survive to here");
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, an overloaded template will always return null for
> > getAsTemplateDecl(). So this assert can be hoisted to the top, which I
> > think would be clearer.
> I didn't get your point here, did you mean moving the assert to the `switch
> (getKind())` like
>
> ```
> switch (getKind()) {
> case OverloadedTemplate:
> assert(!GetAsTemplateDecl());
> }
> ```
> ?
ITYM `assert(getAsTemplateDecl())`
Yes, but also if this is an `OverloadedTemplate`, then getAsTemplateDecl is
always false. So this can just be `assert(false && "some message")` in that
case statement
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/TemplateName.cpp:208
"overloaded templates shouldn't survive to here");
+ D |= TemplateNameDependence::DependentInstantiation;
+ return D;
----------------
what's this line about?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
