manmanren added a comment.
Thanks for reviewing!
Manman
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1037
@@ -1036,1 +1036,3 @@
+DEF_TRAVERSE_TYPE(ObjCTypeParamType, {})
+
----------------
doug.gregor wrote:
> I'm sorta shocked that we don't visit the protocol qualifiers here, but I
> guess we haven't been doing that for ObjCObjectType all along. Weird.
Right below, we don't visit the protocol qualifiers for ObjCObjectType :]
If you think we should, I can patch it up for both types.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1270
@@ -1267,1 +1269,3 @@
+DEF_TRAVERSE_TYPELOC(ObjCTypeParamType, {})
+
----------------
doug.gregor wrote:
> Same shock at not visiting the protocol qualifiers here :)
Same here.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Type.h:4786
@@ +4785,3 @@
+ bool isSugared() const { return false; }
+ QualType desugar() const { return QualType(this, 0); }
+
----------------
doug.gregor wrote:
> This is an interesting choice. Objective-C type parameters were treated like
> typedefs before, so they always act like their underlying type (e.g., because
> they are typedef name declarations). Why isn't ObjCTypeParamType sugar for
> the underlying type of the type parameter (I.e., the bound) w/ the protocol
> qualifiers?
Are you suggesting to canonicalize ObjCTypeParamType to the underlying type
with the protocol qualifiers as well? Or just desugaring?
I think I have tried to set ObjCTypeParamType as NON_CANONICAL_TYPE in
TypeNodes.def, but had some issues.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23079
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
