if E is merely instantiation-dependent."
This change leaves us unable to distinguish between different function
templates that differ in only instantiation-dependent ways, for example
template<typename T> decltype(int(T())) f();
template<typename T> decltype(int(T(0))) f();
We'll need substantially better support for types that are
instantiation-dependent but not dependent before we can go ahead with
this change.
This reverts commit e3065ce238.
if E is merely instantiation-dependent.
Previously reverted in 34e72a146111dd986889a0f0ec8767b2ca6b2913;
re-committed with a fix to an issue that caused name mangling to assert.
The error-bit was missing, and the unexpandedpack bit seemed to be
set incorrectly.
Reviewed By: sammccall, erichkeane
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83114
Summary:
We might lose the error-bit if the error-bit goes through the code path
"error type/expr" -> "error template argument" -> "nested name specifier" ->
... -> "template Specialization type"
Template name also needs this, as a template can be nested into
an error specifier, e.g. templateName apply in
`TC<decltype(<recovery-expr>(Foo, int()))>::template apply`
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82526
Summary:
With recovery-ast, we will get an undeduced `auto` return type for
"auto foo()->undef()" function declaration, the function decl still keeps
valid, it is dangerous, and breaks assumptions in clang, and leads crashes.
This patch invalidates these functions, if we deduce autos from the
return rexpression, which is similar to auto VarDecl.
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80221
Summary:
If the bitwith expr contains errors, we mark the field decl invalid.
This patch also tweaks the behavior of ObjCInterfaceDecl to be consistent with
existing RecordDecl -- getObjCLayout method is only called with valid decls.
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76953
Richard Smith