mizvekov marked 3 inline comments as done. mizvekov added inline comments.
================ 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. ---------------- mizvekov wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > Should we bail out if this happens, as we do in the other cases above? > I think this means what we are trying to merge is unrelated, so yes. I just > didn't come up with a test case yet :) I added the handling for those being different here, but I don't think it matters for any existing type attribute that I could find. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12698-12699 + return Ctx.getAutoType(Underlying, AX->getKeyword(), + AX->isInstantiationDependentType(), + AX->containsUnexpandedParameterPack(), CD, As); + } ---------------- rsmith wrote: > 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`. I think in this case, a dependent Auto will never be sugar, and a non-dependent auto can't have a pack either, so we can just pass in false for both. 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
