[cfe-commits] r127401 - /cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp

[Abramo Bagnara]

Il 10/03/2011 17:18, Douglas Gregor ha scritto:
> 
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> 
>> Il 10/03/2011 16:39, Douglas Gregor ha scritto:
>>>> -          // Note: if NNS is dependent, then its prefix (if any) is already
>>>>> -          // included in ClsType; this does not hold if the NNS is
>>>>> -          // nondependent: in this case (if there is indeed a prefix)
>>>>> -          // ClsType needs to be wrapped into an elaborated type.
>>>>> -          if (NNSPrefix && !NNS->isDependent())
>>>>> +          // Note: if the NNS has a prefix and ClsType is a nondependent
>>>>> +          // TemplateSpecializationType, then the NNS prefix is NOT included
>>>>> +          // in ClsType; hence we wrap ClsType into an ElaboratedType.
>>>>> +          // NOTE: in particular, no wrap occurs if ClsType already is an
>>>>> +          // Elaborated, DependentName, or DependentTemplateSpecialization.
>>>>> +          if (NNSPrefix && isa<TemplateSpecializationType>(NNS->getAsType()))
>>>>>            ClsType = Context.getElaboratedType(ETK_None, NNSPrefix, ClsType);
>>>>>          break;
>>>>>        }
>>> Do you have a test case for this?
>>
>> Apart some tests in the huge testsuite of our application (not useable
>> with clang), the output of clang -cc1 -ast-dump showed the omitted NNS.
>>
>> Taken in account that this was a pure syntactical issue, there is a way
>> to add a testcase for that?
> 
> The ideal way to test this would be to test the output of
> 
> 	c-index-test -test-annotate-tokens

I've no idea how to do that.

I've in past several times rechecked and revalidated the expected output
for several tests in test/Index (an horrible and tiresome work: the
representation line:column is very hard to verify), but I've no idea how
to add other tests.

To be fully honest, doing that work, several times I stopped myself
wondering whether that source locations has been only verbatim copied
(with a prefix) from current output of tools or if they later have
indeed been checked ;-) I've checked several hundredth of that (the one
modified by our patches) and I've to say that I didn't enjoyed it.