================
@@ -1779,6 +1779,42 @@ void Parser::checkPotentialAngleBracket(ExprResult
&PotentialTemplateName) {
Priority);
}
+bool Parser::isMissingTemplateKeywordBeforeScope(bool AnnotateInvalid) {
+ assert(Tok.is(tok::coloncolon));
+ Sema::DisableTypoCorrectionRAII DTC(Actions);
+ ColonProtectionRAIIObject ColonProtection(*this);
+
+ SourceLocation StartLoc = Tok.getLocation();
+ if (TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeToken())
+ return true;
+ if (Tok.isSimpleTypeSpecifier(getLangOpts()))
+ return false;
+ CXXScopeSpec SS;
+ ParseOptionalCXXScopeSpecifier(SS, /*ObjectType=*/nullptr,
+ /*ObjectHasErrors=*/false,
+ /*EnteringContext=*/false);
+ ExprResult Result = tryParseCXXIdExpression(SS,
/*isAddressOfOperand=*/false);
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
Thanks for helping me understand :-) I misunderstood your previous comment (any
tentative parsing done here will happen anyways when parsing the second operand
of the > operator) as suggesting we'd sometimes parse and type-check the same
thing twice in a non-ill-formed program. It sounds like we're not doing that,
which satisfies my concern here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100425
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
