fix look up of shadow constructor #689
Conversation
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #689 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 79.64% 79.65% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 3930 3942 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 3130 3140 +10
- Misses 800 802 +2
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
lib/CppInterOp/CppInterOp.cpp
Outdated
| dyn_cast_or_null<CXXConstructorDecl>(CUSD->getTargetDecl())) { | ||
| CXXConstructorDecl* Result = getSema().findInheritingConstructor( | ||
| SourceLocation(), CXXCD, CUSD); | ||
| // Result is appended to the decls, i.e. CXXRD, iterator |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation is awkward... Would that mean that the iterators are invalidated?
lib/CppInterOp/CppInterOp.cpp
Outdated
| for (Decl* DI : CXXRD->decls()) { | ||
| if (auto* MD = dyn_cast<DeclType>(DI)) | ||
| methods.push_back(MD); | ||
| else if (auto* USD = dyn_cast<UsingShadowDecl>(DI)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we could simplify the levels of indentation if we did:
for (Decl* DI : CXXRD->decls()) {
if (auto* USD = dyn_cast<UsingShadowDecl>(DI))
DI = USD->getTargetDecl();
...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why my approach here did not work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We want ConstructorUsingShadowDecl to pass to findInheritingConstructor. UsingShadowDecl::getTargetDecl will return NamedDecl, in this case CXXConstructorDecl.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but then you will do the usual checks with dyn_cast, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, we cannot do it, because we require the original DI later, in line 862.
Vipul-Cariappa
force-pushed
the
dev/shadow-ctor
branch
from
8c19103 to
1a63d3d
Compare
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Vipul-Cariappa
force-pushed
the
dev/shadow-ctor
branch
from
cfab9ca to
95fa63d
Compare
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Vipul-Cariappa
force-pushed
the
dev/shadow-ctor
branch
from
95fa63d to
ae5947e
Compare
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
shadow constructor need to be reconstructed for the base classes
Co-authored-by: Vassil Vassilev <[email protected]>
Vipul-Cariappa
force-pushed
the
dev/shadow-ctor
branch
from
ae5947e to
0ba1726
Compare
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
2 participants
Description
Shadow constructor need to be reconstructed for the base classes
Fixes # (issue)
Helps fix 1 test in cppyy
Type of change
Please tick all options which are relevant.
Testing
Checklist