mizvekov added a comment. In D111283#3784615 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283#3784615>, @ychen wrote:
> `A<T>` is currently modeled as ElaboratedType. It was > `TemplateSpecializationType` before. Reading comments for `ElaboratedType`, > it looks like sugar type might not be needed here? Ah you might be seeing an ElaboratedTYpe here, where there was none before, perhaps because of https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374, and not because of this patch. Yeah ElaboratedType is just sugar that should have no effect on partial ordering. But then I think no sugar should have effect on partial ordering. What is stopping you from just looking at the canonical type instead? On a canonical type, you would never see an ElaboratedType node, or a TemplateSpecializationType which is not dependent. Is this related to the AutoType canonicalization issues we were discussing in the other patch of yours? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
