ioeric added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47623#1120547, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47623#1119426, @ioeric wrote: > > > Sorry for the late response Ilya. I was trying to test these cases. So, > > with the current change, if a real "canonical" declaration comes before the > > friend decl, then the reference will still be recorded (I've added a test > > case for this). Would this address your concern? > > > No worries about the late response. > I think we should **not** rely on an extra being before the friend > declarations, i.e. we should count a reference either way. > The compiler does not enforce that and there's definitely lots of code where > friend is the first decl. But it's totally up to you if you actually want to > support this or not, of course. I do agree that this isn't ever going to be a > major issue. I think it would be pretty hard (or impossible) to get reference counting for friend decls correct for all cases given how friend decls work in C++ (e.g. friend decls and original decls might not even have the same name in AST). It would be nice to be able to handle all cases, but I do feel solving them is out of the scope of this patch. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D47623 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
