On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok. So we'll definitely need to do some work on this. Getting back to this > patch: I still think it sort of cannot be wrong, as the CXXConstructExpr > currently has the ParenRange and this patch leads to it being correctly > populated. Do you mind getting it in or do you think it makes the current > inconsistent situation worse? Sorry for the delay. I agree that, if we have a ParenRange on CXXConstructExpr, it should be correct. Patch LGTM for that. Long-term, I think we'll want to remove this member and follow John's direction of a CXXDirectInitExpr, but for now this seems better than the status quo.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
