sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/base-class-ambiguity-check.cpp:15
+ // Should not crash on an incomplete-type and dependent base specifier.
+ struct Derived : Base1, Base2 {}; // expected-error {{implicit instantiation
of undefined member 'Foo2<int>::Base1'}} \
+ expected-error {{implicit instantiation
of undefined member 'Foo2<int>::Base2'}}
----------------
hokein wrote:
> The diagnostic is suboptimal (I'd expect it is "invalid use of incomplete
> type"), but it is not regression, clang shows the same diagnostics for the
> following non-crash case:
>
> ```
> template <typename T> struct Foo2 {
> struct Base1;
> struct Derived : Base1 {};
> }
> ```
Or even
```
template <int> struct X;
X<42> y;
```
I think the diagnostic is OK - it's diagnosing why the type *is* incomplete,
rather than why the type *may not* be complete.
Typical use of this pattern would be to provide an out-of-line definition
template:
```
template <typename T> struct Foo2<T>::Base1 {
T contents;
}
```
in which case instantiation is the right idea.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113474/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113474
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
