sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:655
+ struct $Class_decl[[Derived]] :
$Class[[Base]]<$TemplateParameter[[T]]> {
+ using
$Class[[Base]]<$TemplateParameter[[T]]>::$Unknown_decl_dependentName[[member]];
+
----------------
nridge wrote:
> Not sure how I feel about this being a `_decl`.
>
> I know it is in the technical sense, but as a user I think of it more as a
> reference to `Base::member`.
Yeah, I agree, and the combination of `decl` and `dependentName` is pretty
funny.
We have non-dependent equivalent cases (`using ::foo`, not the renaming
versions) and they don't seem to be marked as decl. (I think what's happening
is that `findExplicitReferences` yields the *UsingShadowDecl*s rather than the
*UsingDecl*, as only the former are directly bound to a specific e.g. overload
being referenced)
So with that as precedent, it seems like it would be legitimate to special-case
UnresolvedUsingValueDecl when adding the decl modifier.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99052/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99052
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
