Endill added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr0xx.cpp:489
+
+ using B::i; // expected-error {{redeclaration of using declaration}}
+ using C::i; // expected-error {{redeclaration of using declaration}}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Endill wrote:
> > erichkeane wrote:
> > > As a nit, I prefer the 'notes' to live next to the error, and use a
> > > bookmark line-marker here. My issue is basically how we have no way of
> > > knowing (particularly in template code...) what this diagnoses.
> > >
> > > I would also think a dependent example of this diagnostic would be useful.
> > >I would also think a dependent example of this diagnostic would be useful.
> > Do you mean something of this sort: `using D<int>::i`?
> That is a good example too, but more a case where the using expression is
> dependent, so something like: `using Struct<T>::i` sorta thing
> I prefer the 'notes' to live next to the error
done
> I would also think a dependent example of this diagnostic would be useful.
I'm not sure how you wanted it to interact with virtual bases, so I wrote
examples both with virtual bases and without
> use a bookmark line-marker here
While I'm sympathetic to your concern, and agree that bookmarks allow to order
expected errors and notes in the order they would appear for user, searching
for `@#` gives only 5 DR tests. If that's the direction we want DR tests to
take, we should be explicit about this, because almost all existing tests have
to be adjusted.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138822/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138822
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
