mizvekov wrote:
The reproducer turned out to be pretty simple:
```C++
export module a;
module :private;
static void f() {}
void g() {
f();
}
```
Compiles without that patch, otherwise produces:
```
error: no matching function for call to 'f'
```
> Oh, sorry, I took another look at the commit and it looks the change makes it
> not a NFC change is this line:
> [99873b3#diff-6fe53759e8d797c328c73ada5f3324c6248a8634ef36131c7eb2b9d89192bb64R6514](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/99873b35da7ecb905143c8a6b8deca4d4416f1a9#diff-6fe53759e8d797c328c73ada5f3324c6248a8634ef36131c7eb2b9d89192bb64R6514)
>
> This shouldn't be in that commit but in this commit. It is not intentional. I
> guess we can't observe that if we put that in this PR too. And that change
> looks not bad. So maybe it makes something already bad to show up.
Even without that change, the other changes are too complex, and there are
other suspicious things you wouldn't expect in an NFC commit which doesn't call
this out specifically, like the removal of that whole block with the FIXME
included.
I think the appropriate tag for such commits would be NFCI, and should still
require PR and review.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75912
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
