================
@@ -7801,8 +7801,12 @@ bool Sema::diagnoseArgDependentDiagnoseIfAttrs(const
FunctionDecl *Function,
// It's sane to use the same Args for any redecl of this function,
since
// EvaluateWithSubstitution only cares about the position of each
// argument in the arg list, not the ParmVarDecl* it maps to.
- if (!DIA->getCond()->EvaluateWithSubstitution(
- Result, Context, cast<FunctionDecl>(DIA->getParent()), Args,
ThisArg))
+ // FIXME: This doesn't consider value-dependent cases, because doing so
+ // is very difficult. Ideally, we should handle them more gracefully.
+ if (DIA->getCond()->isValueDependent() ||
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
I was trying to figure out whether type dependence matters here or not, so I
looked at this a bit more.
We're already doing that two-step dance here. e.g., we don't get into
`Sema::diagnoseArgDependentDiagnoseIfAttrs()` for the primary template, only
when instantiating it.
The issue boils down to use of `-ferror-limit`; that results in `TreeTransform`
having nodes which *remain* dependent because of the error dependency bit. IIRC
that's theoretically fine because we can still end up with dependencies in
non-error cases (like partial specializations), but I wonder if we're going to
have other similar issues with other constructs -- we don't test with low error
limits in general. That said, it's not clear to me whether this change is
correct -- should we be looking for error dependence specifically? Or can we
devise a test case that fails without error dependence?
CC @erichkeane @mizvekov for opinions.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/197647
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
