================
@@ -4787,8 +4787,10 @@ LinkageInfo
LinkageComputer::computeTypeLinkageInfo(const Type *T) {
return computeTypeLinkageInfo(cast<ReferenceType>(T)->getPointeeType());
case Type::MemberPointer: {
const auto *MPT = cast<MemberPointerType>(T);
- LinkageInfo LV =
- getDeclLinkageAndVisibility(MPT->getMostRecentCXXRecordDecl());
+ LinkageInfo LV;
+ if (CXXRecordDecl *D = MPT->getMostRecentCXXRecordDecl()) {
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> > Should we be taking visibility from that `getClass` in this case? It is a
> > dependent expression in this case, but perhaps we should be?
>
> I don't know how to construct a test case where a dependent class has
> visibility or linkage. We can do the following, but probably shouldn't unless
> there is a test case:
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp
> index 5783f8701273..951249b8c495 100644
> --- a/clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp
> +++ b/clang/lib/AST/Type.cpp
> @@ -4790,6 +4790,8 @@ LinkageInfo
> LinkageComputer::computeTypeLinkageInfo(const Type *T) {
> LinkageInfo LV;
> if (CXXRecordDecl *D = MPT->getMostRecentCXXRecordDecl()) {
> LV.merge(getDeclLinkageAndVisibility(D));
> + } else if (const Type *Ty = MPT->getQualifier()->getAsType()) {
> + LV.merge(computeTypeLinkageInfo(Ty));
> }
> LV.merge(computeTypeLinkageInfo(MPT->getPointeeType()));
> return LV;
> ```
I'm sympathetic to the 'don't unless there is a test case', but I'm leaning the
other way: we should get this as right as we can, even if we don't know what a
reproducer looks like.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136689
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
