[cfe-commits] [PATCH][MS][Review request] - Microsoft function specialization at scope scope

[Francois Pichet]

ok thanks for the review. I am slowly working on the rework (but I am
slow since this is summer time) 2 things I want to comment:


> +  // Here we have an function template explicit specialization at class scope.
> +  // The actually specialization will be postponed to template instatiation
> +  // time via the ClassScopeFunctionSpecializationDecl node.
> +  if (isDependantClassScopeExplicitSpecialization) {
> +    ClassScopeFunctionSpecializationDecl *NewSpec =
> +                         ClassScopeFunctionSpecializationDecl::Create(
> +                                Context, CurContext,  SourceLocation(),
> +                                cast<CXXMethodDecl>(NewFD));
> +    CurContext->addDecl(NewSpec);
> +    // FIXME: This is hackish: set NewFD to invalid and Redeclaration to true,
> +    // to prevent NewFD from been pushed into scope.
> +    NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
> +    Redeclaration = true;
> +  }
>
> Why not return return NewSpec, and have the caller recognize that it shouldn't try to make ClassScopeFunctionSpecializationDecls visible? (Since they aren't NamedDecls anyway).
>

How can we return NewSpec here? This won't work, We need to return a
FunctionDecl otherwise the function body will be correctly parsed.

> @@ -1514,7 +1516,7 @@
>
>                             : Method);
>     if (isFriend)
>       Record->makeDeclVisibleInContext(DeclToAdd);
> -    else
> +    else if (!IsClassScopeSpecialization)
>       Owner->addDecl(DeclToAdd);
>   }
>
> It seems like it should be okay to addDecl the class scope specializations. Did that break something?

yes it will fail to compile this:
template <class T>
class A {
public:
    template <class U>  void f(U p) { }
    template <>  void f(int p) { }
    void f(int p) {  } // <==error here if we addDecl.
};