sammccall accepted this revision. sammccall added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
thanks, that looks better to me ================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/TemplateName.cpp:193 + } else { + assert(!getAsOverloadedTemplate() && + "overloaded templates shouldn't survive to here"); ---------------- hokein wrote: > sammccall wrote: > > As far as I can tell, an overloaded template will always return null for > > getAsTemplateDecl(). So this assert can be hoisted to the top, which I > > think would be clearer. > I didn't get your point here, did you mean moving the assert to the `switch > (getKind())` like > > ``` > switch (getKind()) { > case OverloadedTemplate: > assert(!GetAsTemplateDecl()); > } > ``` > ? ITYM `assert(getAsTemplateDecl())` Yes, but also if this is an `OverloadedTemplate`, then getAsTemplateDecl is always false. So this can just be `assert(false && "some message")` in that case statement ================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/TemplateName.cpp:208 "overloaded templates shouldn't survive to here"); + D |= TemplateNameDependence::DependentInstantiation; + return D; ---------------- what's this line about? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71920 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits