faisalv added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1112
+ ParseScope TemplateParamScope(this, Scope::TemplateParamScope);
+ if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus2a && Tok.is(tok::less)) {
----------------
hamzasood wrote:
> faisalv wrote:
> > We always create a template parameter scope here - but it's only the right
> > scope if we have explicit template parameters, correct?
> >
> > What I think we should do here is :
> > - factor out (preferably as a separate patch) the post
> > explicit-template-parameter-list parsing into a separate function (F1)
> > which is then called from here.
> > - then in this patch factor out the explicit template-parameter-list
> > parsing also into a separate function that then either calls the function
> > above ('F1'), or sequenced these statements before a call to 'F1'
> > - also since gcc has had explicit template parameters on their generic
> > lambdas for a while, can we find out under what options they have it
> > enabled, and consider enabling it under those options for our gcc emulation
> > mode? (or add a fixme for it?)
> > - should we enable these explicit template parameters for pre-C++2a modes
> > and emit extension/compatibility warnings where appropriate?
> >
> Good point. It isn’t the “wrong” scope in the sense that is breaks anything,
> but it is a bit wasteful to unconditionally push a potentially unneeded scope.
>
> I have another idea that could be less intrusive, which is to replace this
> line and the start of the if statement with:
>
> bool HasExplicitTemplateParams = getLangOpts().CPlusPlus2a &&
> Tok.is(tok::less);
> ParseScope TemplateParamScope(this, Scope::TemplateParamScope,
> HasExplicitTemplateParams);
> if (HasExplicitTemplateParams) {
> // same code as before
> }
>
> That way the scope is only entered when needed, but no restructuring is
> required (which I personally think would make things a bit harder to follow).
> Could that work?
good idea - i think that should work too. (Although i do still like the idea
of refactoring this long function via extract-method - but i can always do that
refactoring post this patch).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36527
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
