================
@@ -2601,10 +2601,11 @@ class CXXConstructorDecl final
void anchor() override;
size_t numTrailingObjects(OverloadToken<InheritedConstructor>) const {
- return CXXConstructorDeclBits.IsInheritingConstructor;
+ return getCanonicalDecl()->CXXConstructorDeclBits.IsInheritingConstructor;
}
size_t numTrailingObjects(OverloadToken<ExplicitSpecifier>) const {
- return CXXConstructorDeclBits.HasTrailingExplicitSpecifier;
+ return getCanonicalDecl()
+ ->CXXConstructorDeclBits.HasTrailingExplicitSpecifier;
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
This change does not look quite correct.
Indeed `numTrailingObjects` is an internal detail of the object that should
preserve its invariants. i.e, it is exactly whether an explicit specifier is
**stored** as a trailing object of this object.
However, you are most probably on the right path.
In `ASTWriterDecl`, `addExplicitSpecifier(D->getExplicitSpecifier(), Record);`
does indeed look incorrect. Because again, we are trying to serialize that
object - not parts that are stored in an other canonicl decl.
I think the solution might be as simple as replacing that line with
`addExplicitSpecifier(D->getExplicitSpecifierInternal(), Record);`
(`getExplicitSpecifierInternal()` does not call `getCanonicalDecl()`)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133077
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
