steakhal wrote: > Which means that there's probably a small opportunity for optimization there. > It may be a good idea to include the *uninstantiated* template in the scan > range while continuing to skip all instantiations? Because that's presumably > how everything else works anyway. And this way we won't need to scan all the > instantiations that we still don't need to scan. And this could be, like, > somewhat noticeable for performance, I think.
Then I think explicit template specializations would break. The unfortunate fact is that primary templates are not that useful for us. To sidestep this, what if we would not overrule the original DeclWithIssue and just traverse that one. That will be the correct fn to traverse. Besides that, would need to retrofit the lexical scope behavior, which is (if we can trust the comment) about enclosing suppress attributes attached to the parent CXXRecordDecls. If that was the only motivation there, then its easy to just check exactly that. But honestly, I just probably wouldnt touch this. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/168954 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
