================
@@ -2282,7 +2282,8 @@ void Sema::ActOnPopScope(SourceLocation Loc, Scope *S) {
// Remove this name from our lexical scope, and warn on it if we haven't
// already.
- IdResolver.RemoveDecl(D);
+ if (!PP.isIncrementalProcessingEnabled())
+ IdResolver.RemoveDecl(D);
----------------
vgvassilev wrote:
No, this change makes sure that we preserve the state of the `IdResolver`
across partial translation units (PTU). That is, when we see another
incremental output, we still take into account the declarations that came from
previous PTUs. Eg:
```
[repl] int i = 12;
[repl] printf("%d\n", i); // without this patch we report we do not know what
`i` is...
```
To your explicit question this patch produces:
```
bin/clang-repl -Xcc -xc
clang-repl> { int i = 12; }
clang-repl> printf("%d", i); // Fine?
In file included from <<< inputs >>>:1:
input_line_2:1:1: error: call to undeclared library function 'printf' with type
'int (const char *, ...)'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function
declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
1 | printf("%d", i); // Fine?
| ^
input_line_2:1:1: note: include the header <stdio.h> or explicitly provide a
declaration for 'printf'
input_line_2:1:14: error: reference to local variable 'i' declared in enclosing
context
1 | printf("%d", i); // Fine?
| ^
input_line_1:1:7: note: 'i' declared here
1 | { int i = 12; }
| ^
error: Parsing failed.
clang-repl> %quit
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89804
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
