a.sidorin added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/AST/ASTImporter.cpp:2993 + return nullptr; + } + ---------------- szepet wrote: > nit: As I see these cases typically handled in the way: > > ``` > FrPattern = .; > ToPattern = ..; > if(FrPattern && !ToPattern) > ``` > Just to avoid the nested ifstmt. The logic is a bit more complicated. There are 3 cases: # Both `FromPattern` and `ToPattern` are `nullptr`s. Just continue. # `FromPattern` is non-null and `ToPattern` is null. Return error (`nullptr`). # Both `FromPattern` and `ToPattern` are `nullptr`s. Do the `set...` action. So, it will require nested `if`s or a code like: ``` if (FromPattern && ToPattern) set... if (FromPattern && !ToPattern) return nullptr; ``` ================ Comment at: lib/AST/ASTImporter.cpp:3000 + else + // FIXME: We return a nullptr here but the definition is already created + // and available with lookups. How to fix this?.. ---------------- szepet wrote: > I dont see the problem with moving these up , collect nad investigate them in > a smallset before the Create function, then adding them to the created > ToUsing decl. It could be done as a follow up patch, dont want to mark it as > a blocking issue. There is a chicken and egg problem: both UsingShadowDecl and UsingDecl reference each other and UsingShadowDecl gets referenced UsingDecl as a ctor argument. If you have a good idea on how to resolve this dependency correctly, please point me. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
