On Apr 2, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> @@ -766,14 +763,7 @@ public:
>> StorageClass getStorageClass() const {
>> return (StorageClass) VarDeclBits.SClass;
>> }
>>
>> Can you add a comment on getStorageClass() (both of them) noting that this
>> is the storage class as written in the source code, pointing to getLinkage()?
>
> Done.
>
>> This API change is probably release-note-worthy, because we're going from a
>> semantic description to a syntactic one.
>
> Done.
>
>> +bool CXXMethodDecl::isStatic() const {
>> + const CXXMethodDecl *MD = this;
>> + for (;;) {
>> + const CXXMethodDecl *C = MD->getCanonicalDecl();
>> + if (C != MD) {
>> + MD = C;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + FunctionTemplateSpecializationInfo *Info =
>> MD->getTemplateSpecializationInfo();
>> + if (!Info)
>> + break;
>> + MD = cast<CXXMethodDecl>(Info->getTemplate()->getTemplatedDecl());
>> + }
>>
>> Also look through member specialization info?
>
> I am not sure. The only case where getPreviousDecl is not attached is
>
> struct B {
> template <class T> static void funcT1();
> };
> template <class T>
> void B::funcT1() {}
> void test() {
> B::funcT1<int>();
> }
>
> Should getPreviousDecl in this example reach the static decl? If so,
> we should probably go the other way: remove the
> getTemplateSpecializationInfon check and fix the linking.
The template "funcT1" is not a previous declaration of the specialization
B::funcT1<int>. But to figure out that the specialization B::funcT1<int> is
static we either need the specialization itself to be marked static or we need
to walk through getTemplateSpecializationInfo. The member specialization info
is for something like:
template<typename T>
struct C {
static void funcT2();
};
void test()
C<int>::funcT2();
}
> New patch attached. I will probably commit it tomorrow and fix
> isStatic in a followup patch.
Sounds good.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
