[clang] [clang] remove ClassScopeFunctionSpecializationDecl (PR #66636)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -10442,32 +10441,54 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
     if (getLangOpts().CUDA && !isFunctionTemplateSpecialization)
       maybeAddCUDAHostDeviceAttrs(NewFD, Previous);
 
-    // If it's a friend (and only if it's a friend), it's possible
-    // that either the specialized function type or the specialized
-    // template is dependent, and therefore matching will fail.  In
-    // this case, don't check the specialization yet.
-    if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization && isFriend &&
-        (NewFD->getType()->isDependentType() || DC->isDependentContext() ||
-         TemplateSpecializationType::anyInstantiationDependentTemplateArguments(
-             TemplateArgs.arguments()))) {
-      assert(HasExplicitTemplateArgs &&
-             "friend function specialization without template args");
-      if (CheckDependentFunctionTemplateSpecialization(NewFD, TemplateArgs,
-                                                       Previous))
-        NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
-    } else if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {
-      if (CurContext->isDependentContext() && CurContext->isRecord()
-          && !isFriend) {
-        isDependentClassScopeExplicitSpecialization = true;
-      } else if (!NewFD->isInvalidDecl() &&
-                 CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(
-                     NewFD, (HasExplicitTemplateArgs ? &TemplateArgs : nullptr),
-                     Previous))
-        NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
+    // Handle explict specializations of function templates
+    // and friend function declarations with an explicit
+    // template argument list.
+    if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {
+      bool isDependentSpecialization = false;
+      if (isFriend) {
+        // For friend function specializations, this is a dependent
+        // specialization if its semantic context is dependent, its
+        // type is dependent, or if its template-id is dependent.
+        isDependentSpecialization =
+            DC->isDependentContext() || NewFD->getType()->isDependentType() ||
+            (HasExplicitTemplateArgs &&
+             TemplateSpecializationType::
+                 anyInstantiationDependentTemplateArguments(
+                     TemplateArgs.arguments()));
+        assert(!isDependentSpecialization ||
+               (HasExplicitTemplateArgs == isDependentSpecialization) &&
+                   "dependent friend function specialization without template "
+                   "args");
+      } else {
+        // For class-scope explicit specializations of function templates,
+        // if the lexical context is dependent, then the specialization
+        // is dependent.
+        isDependentSpecialization =
+            CurContext->isRecord() && CurContext->isDependentContext();
+      }
+
+      TemplateArgumentListInfo *ExplicitTemplateArgs =
+          HasExplicitTemplateArgs ? &TemplateArgs : nullptr;
+      if (isDependentSpecialization) {
+        // If it's a dependent specialization, it may not be possible
+        // to determine the primary template (for explicit specializations)
+        // or befriended declaration (for friends) until the enclosing
+        // template is instantiated. In such cases, we store the declarations
+        // found by name lookup and defer resolution until instantiation.
+        if (CheckDependentFunctionTemplateSpecialization(
+                NewFD, ExplicitTemplateArgs, Previous))
+          NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
+      } else if (!NewFD->isInvalidDecl()) {
+        if (CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization(NewFD, ExplicitTemplateArgs,
+                                                Previous))
+          NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
+      }
 
       // C++ [dcl.stc]p1:
       //   A storage-class-specifier shall not be specified in an explicit
       //   specialization (14.7.3)
+      // FIXME: We should be checking this for dependent specializations.
----------------
erichkeane wrote:

This seems like an important "FIXME' here, right?  Particularly since the dependence check is removed below? (10514)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66636