ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D153003#4463426 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003#4463426>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> In D153003#4462388 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003#4462388>, @ChuanqiXu > wrote: > >>> Oh, I guess we're somehow adding a semi-resolved form of the base class >>> type of D into the ODR hash, which then includes details of the >>> using-declaration. That seems wrong -- we should either (preferably) be >>> including only the syntactic form of the base specifier (because local >>> syntax is what the ODR covers), or the canonical type (which should be the >>> same for both using-declarations). >> >> Got it. I'll try to fix it. Thanks for the suggestion. > > Thanks @rsmith for the differential diagnosis! > > @ChuanqiXu, could you add me and @Hahnfeld in the loop as that's critical for > us. Got it. No problem : ) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
