rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12654
+ return QualType();
+ // FIXME: It's inneficient to have to unify the original types.
+ return Ctx.getAdjustedType(Ctx.getCommonSugaredType(OX, OY), Underlying);
----------------
Typo "inefficient" (multiple instances)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12670
+ return QualType();
+ // FIXME: The modified types can be different as well.
+ // FIXME: It's inneficient to have to unify the modified types.
----------------
Should we bail out if this happens, as we do in the other cases above?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12695-12696
+ if (CD)
+ As = getCommonTemplateArguments(Ctx, AX->getTypeConstraintArguments(),
+ AY->getTypeConstraintArguments());
+ return Ctx.getAutoType(Underlying, AX->getKeyword(),
----------------
These template arguments might in general be unrelated. Is that a problem here?
Eg:
```
template<typename T, template<typename> typename Predicate> concept satisfies =
Predicate<T>::value;
auto f(bool c) {
satisfies<std::is_trivially_copyable> auto x = 0;
satisfies<std::is_integral> auto y = 0;
// Common sugar here should presumably be "unconstrained auto deduced as
`int`".
return c ? x : y;
}
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12698-12699
+ return Ctx.getAutoType(Underlying, AX->getKeyword(),
+ AX->isInstantiationDependentType(),
+ AX->containsUnexpandedParameterPack(), CD, As);
+ }
----------------
Instantiation-dependence and "contains unexpanded parameter pack" can depend on
which sugar we choose to preserve. I think you strictly-speaking would need to
recompute these based on the sugar we end up with rather than inheriting them
from `AX`.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12767-12769
+ if (!declaresSameEntity(DX, DY))
+ return QualType();
+ return Ctx.getUsingType(::getCommonDecl(DX, DY), Underlying);
----------------
Can avoid a repeated check here.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130308/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130308
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
