Wrong lookup performed for __super

[Reid Kleckner]

Yeah, looks good to me.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can I commit this Reid?
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ping.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Something like this?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see lots of calls to LookupQualifiedName and only a few of them check
>>>> if they should call LookupInSuper.
>>>>
>>>> Many users of LookupQualifiedName are looking up thinks like
>>>> SomeClass::operator=, so they don't have a CXXScopeSpec. Maybe we should
>>>> add a CXXScopeSpec overload to LookupQualifiedName to make it easier for
>>>> callers to do the right thing?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ping
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that there's one more place where we need to call
>>>>>> LookupInSuper. I've modified the relevant tests to catch this by having
>>>>>> different signature for the method and making sure the right one is called.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20141201/656ea727/attachment.html>