Thanks, fixed up slightly and committed as r180708. Do we need a similar change for the calls to ActOnReenterTemplateScope in Parser::ParseLexedAttribute(s) ?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is a patch for calculating the TemplateParameterDepth correctly, > built upon Will Wilson's patch (and includes his code - i hope that's ok > to do?). > Please let me know what you think - or if you need me to submit it a > different way .... > Thanks! > > Faisal Vali > > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> + assert( Actions.getDiagnostics().hasErrorOccurred() || >>> + (!dyn_cast<FunctionTemplateDecl>(LM.D) || >>> + >>> (dyn_cast<FunctionTemplateDecl>(LM.D)->getTemplateParameters()-> >>> + getDepth() < TemplateParameterDepth)) && >>> "TemplateParameterDepth" >>> + " should be greater than the depth of current template >>> being" >>> + " instantiated!"); >>> >>> No space after (, extra space on the next line, and this will generate a >>> || versus && precedence warning. Also, would be more consistent to reflow >>> the string literal to start on its own line. >>> >>> + // getNumTemplateParameterLists returns the number of TPLs >>> + // minus the TPL of the actual function being instantiated >>> + // i.e. consider a nested member class template with >>> + // a template member of a function defined out of class ... its >>> + // associated TPLs >>> + // Therefore we add 1 to the depth for the Declarator itself >>> + // and the rest for the outer TPLs returned by getNumTPLs >>> >>> Something seems to be missing from the first part of this comment. In >>> any case, IIRC there's a patch in flight which removes this code and makes >>> it call ActOnReenterTemplateScope the right number of times. >>> >>> >> ok - I shall wait for you to commit that patch, then update my code >> against trunk - and then incorporate all your comments and resubmit this >> patch. >> >> Any thoughts on the dependent bases patch for ms-compatibility? >> >> Also can I start emailing you some interim patches for generic-lambdas, >> even though they are not entirely functional - but I could use feedback on >> the approach and the API's used early on before I go down the wrong rabbit >> hole? >> >> thanks! >> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
