• rebased
• addressed review comments

Add support for implicit typenames of the form T::template U</*...*>

• Addressed review comments

• Use TryConsumeToken

• Fix crash with invalid postfix expr
• Don't emit FixIt when using <

Nevermind, seems to be working fine even with.

In D36357#1501961, @rsmith wrote:

In D36357#1500949, @Rakete1111 wrote:

How should I do this? Do I just skip to the next }, or also take into account any additional scopes? Also does this mean that I skip and then revert, because that seems pretty expensive?

It would be a little expensive, yes, but we'd only be doing it on codepaths where we're producing an error -- for an ill-formed program, it's OK to take more time in order to produce a better diagnostic. Skipping to the next } won't work, because SkipUntil will skip over pairs of brace-balanced tokens (so you'll skip past the } you're looking for), but skipping until the next { and then skipping to the } after it should work.

• Addressed review comments

we could perform a tentative parse and skip to the } of the lambda.

@Tyker This broke the Chromium build, could you investigate please? http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190506/270340.html

You might want to consider getting commit access.

Is this also okay?

@rsmith One last question: The fixit diagnostic seems to be inconsistent with the rest?

friendly ping :)

Don't leak memory and friendly ping :)

Can you add tests for the bugs you fixed? thanks

Thanks for working on this! :)

Otherwise LGTM.

Rebase + friendly ping :).

Don't relookup the qualified-id and use the cached one instead if possible.

rsmith:

Some thoughts on this:

• Can this be unified with the lookup code in HandleDeclarator? This is really the same lookup, repeated in two places.

What I wrote:

Fix a bug where T::value inside a functional cast in a template argument would be interpreted as a function type.

This revision has been superseded :)

Backporting to 8.0.0 is possibly possible, you'll need to ping Hans. I don't know about previous versions though.

Yeah, seems like we don't instantiate pair<int, int> at all in that specific case. LGTM but you might want to wait for someone else to confirm.

Apart from the comments I think your patch LGTM, but I'll let someone else hav the final say.

@rsmith do you have any more comments?

Rebase + friendly ping :)

You're missing the case of the function return type of a parameter.

Rebase and friendly ping! :)

Addressed review comments :)

LGTM, thanks :)

I also found another diagnostic regression:

Addressed review comments! :)

I'm pretty sure I implemented the rules correctly now :)

Remove spaces to be consistent.

Addressed review comments! :)

Fix easy errors in tests that I missed by adding explicit template instantations.

Remove unneeded -Wc++2a-compat flag in tests.

Rebase and friendly ping :)

Update DR list.

In D53595#1276330, @rsmith wrote:

In D53595#1273848, @Rakete1111 wrote:

Addresed review comments :)

I updated the dr status file but a lot of unrelated changes made it in. Is this okay?

Please regenerate the file without your change and check that in as a separate commit prior to this.

Addresed review comments :)

Use correct clang and version spelling.