rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/DeclTemplate.h:373-391
+class TemplateDeclWithACBase {
+protected:
+ TemplateDeclWithACBase() = default;
+
+ ConstrainedTemplateDeclInfo CTDInfo;
+};
+
----------------
This mechanism seems unnecessary to me; allocating the
`ConstrainedTemplateDeclInfo` separately seems a lot simpler. Forcing this and
the template into a single allocation is unlikely to help anything since we use
a slab allocator (which is going to lay the objects out the same way this
template trick does, unless we hit the end of a slab).
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp:1178
+ if (!(CurAC || PrevAC))
+ return false; // nothing to check
+ if (CurAC && PrevAC) {
----------------
[nit] Comments should be full sentences: capitalized and ending in a period.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp:1299-1300
+ // Attach the associated constraints when the declaration will not be part of
+ // a decl chain
+ Expr *const ACtoAttach =
----------------
Is there a reason you don't want to store the associated constraints that were
specified on a redeclaration? I'd expect that to hurt tools that want source
fidelity (for instance, a renaming tool will want to be able to find all the
references to a particular name, even in a //requires-clause// on a
redeclaration of a template).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25674
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
