r233249 - [Modules] A second attempt at writing out on-disk hash tables for the

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> So, the problem seems to be that the class has implicit special members
> that are not in the list of lexical declarations of the class but are in
> the visible lookup results. In order for this to happen, you might need to
> have two definitions of a class that get merged together, where the
> implicit special members are only present in the definition that we demoted
> to a declaration.
>

Wouldn't that be a bug?

It certainly looks like a bug -- the lookup table has named decl in it for
the constructor name that is a wild pointer.


>
> Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to add the name of the current
> class to Names before performing the lexical walk of the class, if it's in
> the list of constructor names. That would also let you avoid the lexical
> walk entirely if the only constructor or conversion name is for the class's
> own constructor(s) (that is, if the class has no inheriting constructors or
> conversion functions, but does have constructors, which is likely to be a
> very common case).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150326/db3ca470/attachment.html>