[PATCH] D19468: Disallow duplication of imported entities (improved implementation)

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> wrote:

> You cannot simply skip a redeclaration unless it is declared at same
> location.
>
>
>
> For example:
>
>
>
> namespace X { int a; }
>
> // some other code
>
> namespace X { int b; }
>

>
> You cannot eliminate the second namespace, can you?
>

It's not the declarations of the namespace that I'm referring to - it's the
using declarations


>
>
> void foo () { using X:a; }
>
> void bar () { using X:a; }
>
>
>
> Also here, you cannot eliminate the second using-decl can you?
>

These wouldn't be redeclarations of each other, I don't think. They
represent different decls in each scope (that resolve to the same entity,
but are themselves distinct declarations).

But no, it seems like two identical using declarations in the same scope
aren't considered to be redeclarations of each other, so my suggestion
doesn't apply in any case.

Could you remind me why this comes up? If the user wrote two of the same
using decls, it doesn't seem like the worst thing if we produce equally
redundant output. If I recall correctly, we had some correctness
problem/some case where we were emitting two using decls even though the
user only wrote one?


>
>
> Looking into the code, it is not simple to introduce these checks, as
> there is no one place that will affect all Decls, and we will need to
> handle each Decl separately.
>
> Can you think on a place where we can add this in AST?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amjad
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 03:12
> *To:* reviews+D19468+public+d141c7248d054ca3 at reviews.llvm.org; Aboud,
> Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com>; Adrian Prantl <
> aprantl at apple.com>; llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] D19468: Disallow duplication of imported entities
> (improved implementation)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Amjad Aboud via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> aaboud added a comment.
>
> I am not much familiar with the AST part, but I assume there is reuse of
> previous generated DCL, even if it has same data.
>
>
> What if we filter by cases where the decl == the canonical decl, and skip
> any decl that's a redeclaration?
>
>
>
> Here is a small example that leads into duplication in AST DCLs.
> You may run the following command line:
>
>   clang -cc1 -ast-dump -o - -O0 TestIM.cpp
>
> TestIM.cpp
> ----------
>
>   #include "TestIM.h"
>   #include "TestIM.h"
>
>
>
> TestIM.h
> --------
>
>   namespace X {
>     typedef int MyINT_t;
>   }
>
>   namespace Y {
>     using X::MyINT_t;
>
>   }
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19468
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160426/a695de18/attachment.html>