hubert.reinterpretcast marked 3 inline comments as done. hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h:355 protected: - // This is probably never used. - TemplateDecl(Kind DK, DeclContext *DC, SourceLocation L, DeclarationName Name) ---------------- Removed this constructor as a drive-by. ================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h:412-417 + /// \brief The template parameter list and optional requires-clause + /// associated with this declaration. + /// + /// The boolean value indicates whether this particular declaration has an + /// attached \c Expr representing the associated constraints of the template. + llvm::PointerIntPair<TemplateParameterList *, 1, bool> TemplateParams; ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Rather than tail-allocating the associated constraints (which will be an > inconvenience for every class that derives from `TemplateDecl`), can you > store this as a `PointerUnion` of a `TemplateParameterList*` and a pointer to > a struct wrapping a `TemplateParameterList*` and the associated constraints > expression? I'm not really concerned about paying one extra pointer per > associated constraints expression we store (and I suspect we may want to > store this as something richer than an expression at some point). As discussed in person, I am using `PointerUnion` in the base class. I am still allocating the proposed struct alongside the `TemplateDecl` instance where it is not too much trouble. ================ Comment at: test/CXX/concepts-ts/temp/temp.constr/temp.constr.decl/class-template-decl.cpp:9 +struct A; +template <typename T> requires !!sizeof(MyBool) +struct A; ---------------- Status of this line is unclear. A conservative user of the language should probably avoid this as ill-formed NDR (functionally equivalent but not equivalent). This line as been replaced. ================ Comment at: test/CXX/concepts-ts/temp/temp.constr/temp.constr.decl/class-template-decl.cpp:12 + +} // end namespace nodiag + ---------------- hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > I should probably add some template-dependent cases. Propagation of associated constraints to instantiated specializations will need to be added later. https://reviews.llvm.org/D25674 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
