This reverts commit cc56c66f27.
Fixed a bad assertion, the target of a UsingShadowDecl must not have
*local* qualifiers, but it can be a typedef whose underlying type is qualified.
Currently there's no way to find the UsingDecl that a typeloc found its
underlying type through. Compare to DeclRefExpr::getFoundDecl().
Design decisions:
- a sugar type, as there are many contexts this type of use may appear in
- UsingType is a leaf like TypedefType, the underlying type has no TypeLoc
- not unified with UnresolvedUsingType: a single name is appealing,
but being sometimes-sugar is often fiddly.
- not unified with TypedefType: the UsingShadowDecl is not a TypedefNameDecl or
even a TypeDecl, and users think of these differently.
- does not cover other rarer aliases like objc @compatibility_alias,
in order to be have a concrete API that's easy to understand.
- implicitly desugared by the hasDeclaration ASTMatcher, to avoid
breaking existing patterns and following the precedent of ElaboratedType.
Scope:
- This does not cover types associated with template names introduced by
using declarations. A future patch should introduce a sugar TemplateName
variant for this. (CTAD deduced types fall under this)
- There are enough AST matchers to fix the in-tree clang-tidy tests and
probably any other matchers, though more may be useful later.
Caveats:
- This changes a fairly common pattern in the AST people may depend on matching.
Previously, typeLoc(loc(recordType())) matched whether a struct was
referred to by its original scope or introduced via using-decl.
Now, the using-decl case is not matched, and needs a separate matcher.
This is similar to the case of typedefs but nevertheless both adds
complexity and breaks existing code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114251
Sam McCall