cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/Parser.cpp:1886-1889
+ case Sema::NC_Concept:
case Sema::NC_VarTemplate:
case Sema::NC_FunctionTemplate:
case Sema::NC_UndeclaredTemplate: {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Would this change make sense, to validate that we're still consuming the
> token in these three cases? I think it was an assumption we made previously,
> but it's not clear to me if the code used to consume something other than `<`
> as well.
I'm not sure. You'll notice that using a var template without template argument
does not trigger the assert. That's because `ClassifyName` will return
`NC_NonType` instead of `NC_VarTemplate` in that case. I don't think that makes
sense either, but that require more investigation. I do think however all
template names not followed by arguments should produce a TemplateIdAnnotation
so the change is not not correct :)
If you insist, i can put the assert back, but I'm not sure the assert was
testing the right thing.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146719/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146719
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
