Thanks, I slightly simplified the test and inlined it, and committed as r180701.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, adopted your suggestions. Hope this is what you had in mind. > Thanks for your patience! > > > Faisal Vali > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You can use CXXRecordDecl::hasAnyDependentBases instead of writing it out >> for yourself. The large example in the comment seems unnecessary; the >> existing comment and unit test are enough. >> On 24 Apr 2013 17:49, "Faisal Vali" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Of course, that approach seems to work! >>> >>> Patch is attached - thanks! >>> >>> >>> Faisal Vali >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Hmm, OK, I see. I think we should just not be calling >>>> ActOnDependentIdExpression here in the first place. That is trying to cope >>>> with access to a member of 'this' in a dependent base class, and there are >>>> no dependent base classes. In ActOnIdExpression, we should be looking at >>>> whether the class is a dependent context (or, better, whether it has >>>> dependent bases), not whether the method is. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But that doesn't catch the case where the qualifier is the containing >>>>> class itself (A::XX) i.e which also causes an assertion violation - for >>>>> e.g. this does not work: >>>>> >>>>> const bool IsInMicrosoftModeWithoutAQualifierLoc = >>>>> getSema().getLangOpts().MicrosoftMode && >>>>> !QualifierLoc.getNestedNameSpecifier(); >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Faisal Vali >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Richard Smith >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> E->isTypeDependent() will always be true for a >>>>>> CXXDependentScopeMemberExpr, so the patch would just turn off the >>>>>> optimization in MicrosoftMode. I think the right thing to check here is >>>>>> that we have a QualifierLoc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Richard, >>>>>>> was working on the TemplateParameterDepth patch and while >>>>>>> crafting some tests, I stumbled upon an assertion violation out of >>>>>>> CodeGen >>>>>>> for the following code compiled with -fms-compatibility and >>>>>>> -fdelayed-template-parsing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again, this might be a very narrow fix, and there might be a >>>>>>> more general way to address this issue - so welcome the feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Faisal Vali >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
