aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:10546-10548
+ if (PointeeTy->isDependentType()) {
+ return true;
+ }
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:13824
SourceLocation OpLoc) {
- if (Op->isTypeDependent())
+ if (Op->isTypeDependent() && !Op->getType()->isPointerType())
return S.Context.DependentTy;
----------------
One thing that makes me a bit uncomfortable is that the logic for these used to
be far more understandable when it was just checking for a dependent type. Now
we need to sprinkle "and not a pointer type" in places, but it's not
particularly clear as to why for a naïve reader of the code.
I wonder if we want some sort of type predicate `isDeferrablyDependentType()`
or something along those lines, or whether that's not really plausible?
Basically, I'm hoping to find a way that, as a code reviewer, I can more easily
spot places where `isTypeDependent()` should really be caring about type
dependent pointers as a special case.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112453/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112453
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
