v.g.vassilev closed this revision.
v.g.vassilev added a comment.
Landed in r305799. I would like to test it and I think that should be possible
as soon as I land some interpreter infrastructure which is on my TODO list.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31187
rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
The patch itself LGTM. I'd like some test coverage, but if this will be covered
by some upcoming interpreter piece and you need this to unblock yourselves,
that's good enough for me. In any ca
yaron.keren added a comment.
Could use dumpDeclContext() to test?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
v.g.vassilev added a comment.
Not sure, this code is used by external tools. Maybe I could craft an example
but it would be very complex, bringing half of the third party tool codebase...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
arphaman added a comment.
Is it possible to test this change?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
v.g.vassilev updated this revision to Diff 92481.
v.g.vassilev edited the summary of this revision.
v.g.vassilev added a comment.
U
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31187
Files:
lib/AST/DeclBase.cpp
Index: lib/AST/DeclBase.cpp
===
v.g.vassilev created this revision.
Consider:
`
struct MyClass {
void f() {}
}
MyClass::f(){} // expected error redefinition of f.
`
The routine fails to remove the lookup entry is registered in the semantic decl
context and not in the primary decl context of the lexical decl context where
