Sorry for the delay! The crash fix LGTM, but the diagnostic improvement needs
refinement.
Ideally, I'd like for us to also give a note pointing at the template
declaration in the case where we have a TemplateDecl that's not a
VarTemplateDecl, and to give notes pointing at each function template in the
case where we have a function template rather than a variable template, but I'm
happy for this patch to be committed without that.
(Also, it'd be awesome if we could give a fixit adding the parens to the
template declaration in either the case where there's only one element in the
overload set or where we can figure out which one the user meant somehow.)
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:3300
@@ -3298,1 +3299,3 @@
+ "no variable template matches%select{| partial}0 specialization; "
+ "did you mean to use %1 as function template instead">;
----------------
`"did you mean"` diagnostics usually have a `?` at the end.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp:2384-2386
@@ +2383,5 @@
+ if (I != IEnd) {
+ return Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(),
diag::err_var_spec_no_template_but_method)
+ << IsPartialSpecialization
+ << (*I)->getDeclName();
+ }
----------------
We should give this diagnostic in the case where there's only one declaration
that's a function as well as in the case where there's an overload set of them.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:3299
@@ +3298,3 @@
+def err_var_spec_no_template_but_method : Error<
+ "no variable template matches%select{| partial}0 specialization; "
+ "did you mean to use %1 as function template instead">;
----------------
The partial specialization case here makes no sense; you can't partially
specialize a function template, so we know the user didn't mean that.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D3198
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
