royjacobson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/constraints-instantiation.cpp:3-8
+// void PR46029::A<1>::f()
+// CHECK: define {{.*}} @_ZN7PR460291AILi1EE1fEv
+// void PR46029::A<2>::f()
+// CHECK: define {{.*}} @_ZN7PR460291AILi2EE1fEv
+// void PR46029::A<3>::f()
+// CHECK-NOT: define {{.*}} @_ZN7PR460291AILi3EE1fEv
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think it might be better to test this via an `-ast-dump` test (which lives
> in the `AST` test directory) rather than emitting LLVM IR to determine
> whether something was instantiated or not.
>
> Btw, when you convert the test to use `-ast-dump`, be sure to make use of
> regexes for things like line, column numbers, pointer values, etc so that the
> test is easier to edit without breaking.
I tried to look now into doing it in the ast-dump. It seems that we create a
new `ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl` in SemaTemplate:9663
(`ActOnExplicitInstantiation`) that is copied from the parent
`ClassTemplateDecl` along with all its members and `CXXMethodDecl`s. That means
that the member functions with the unsatisfied constraints still appear in the
AST.
Do you think I should add the constraints checks into the creation of
`ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl` instead, so we don't create unnecessary
`CXXMethodDecl`?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120255/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120255
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
