Skip to content

[clang] Forward TPL of NestedNameSpecifier #18464

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 6, 2025

Conversation

hahnjo
Copy link
Member

@hahnjo hahnjo commented Apr 22, 2025

This avoids type suffixes for integer constants when the type can be inferred from the template parameter.

Closes #18363

@hahnjo hahnjo self-assigned this Apr 22, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 22, 2025

Test Results

    19 files      19 suites   4d 7h 4m 29s ⏱️
 2 733 tests  2 733 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
50 494 runs  50 494 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit fc8c421.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@hahnjo hahnjo marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2025 13:19
@hahnjo hahnjo requested a review from pcanal April 29, 2025 13:19
Copy link
Member

@pcanal pcanal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you very much.

Copy link
Member

@vgvassilev vgvassilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now that I see the solution I remember that passing the TPL also helped in a few other occasions. I wished I have remembered that sooner. LGTM!

hahnjo and others added 2 commits May 6, 2025 15:04
This avoids type suffixes for integer constants when the type can be
inferred from the template parameter.

Closes root-project#18363
@vgvassilev
Copy link
Member

I'd prefer if both commits are squashed makes the history clearer in terms of what was fixed and what was broken.

@hahnjo
Copy link
Member Author

hahnjo commented May 6, 2025

I'd prefer if both commits are squashed makes the history clearer in terms of what was fixed and what was broken.

While I agree in general, I don't want to do this here because we want to backport to at least 6.36 and we still have the separate roottest repository there.

@vgvassilev
Copy link
Member

Probably we can adjust the backport instead?

@hahnjo
Copy link
Member Author

hahnjo commented May 6, 2025

Hrm, it's extra work and probably requires me to edit .patch files, but fine...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Incorrect name normalization for template with size_t template argument
3 participants