Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] visibility of typedefs/type aliases

> > I agree that typedefs require special treatment. Will you be willing to
> > give it a shot?
> I've been shooting already ;-) And that's why I was asking. The question is
> whether the code stated below is required, or if it is superfluous.
> My first approach was to remove the check altogether, and in fact the typedefs
> started to work. But I don't know what might break by this change. First I
> thought it might be forward declarations but then I realized that those cannot
> be subject of this check. Do you have any hints what this check is good for
> (comments in the code would be a boon ;-)?

I don't know about this piece of code in particular, but a good way
to assess whether a change breaks something is to run relevant
test suites and see if the change causes any failures. For changes
to the parser/indexer/semantics code, I typically run
DOMParserTestSuite and IndexTests. Another idea is to run the
codan tests (I don't recall the name of the test suite at the moment).


Back to the top