hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Index/IndexTypeSourceInfo.cpp:167
+ if (!TraverseTemplateName(TL.getTypePtr()->getTemplateName()))
+ return false;
+
----------------
nridge wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > nit: this could be simplified by calling the
> > `base::TraverseTemplateSpecializationTypeLoc`
> I don't see how, given that `WalkUpFromTemplateSpecializationTypeLoc()`needs
> to be called with `Relations` containing `RelationIsBaseOf`, while
> `TraverseTemplateArgumentLoc()` needs to be called with `Relations` empty.
you're right. I misthought the above 4 lines are exactly the same as the one in
RAV.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Index/IndexTypeSourceInfo.cpp:174
+ for (unsigned I = 0, E = TL.getNumArgs(); I != E; ++I) {
+ if (!TraverseTemplateArgumentLoc(TL.getArgLoc(I)))
+ return false;
----------------
if something bad happens (TraverseTemplateArgumentLoc returns false), we will
not restore the Relations, I think we need a RAII pattern
(`llvm::make_scope_exit`) to restore the `Relations`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86424/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86424
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
