aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:390
- if (isa<RecordType>(ElemType.getTypePtr())) {
+ if (ElemType->isRecordType()) {
const Record *R = BasePtr.getElemRecord();
----------------
The difference between these two is that `isRecordType()` is looking at the
canonical type whereas `isa<>` is looking at the type under inspection rather
than the canonical type. I'd expect these to have the same behavior in most
cases, but only matter for cases involving typedefs.
I think you're correct about the test case below not needing these particular
changes -- at least, I'm not seeing what's changed that should impact the test.
Should this be split into two changes? 1) Expose the test, 2) Make this
functional change + add a new test where the canonical type is different to
demonstrate the fix.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143334/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143334
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
