doug.gregor added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1037
@@ -1036,1 +1036,3 @@
+DEF_TRAVERSE_TYPE(ObjCTypeParamType, {})
+
----------------
manmanren wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I think we should.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Type.h:4786
@@ +4785,3 @@
+ bool isSugared() const { return false; }
+ QualType desugar() const { return QualType(this, 0); }
+
----------------
manmanren wrote:
> 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.
Canonicalize to the underlying type + protocol qualifiers. We don't need the
desugaring part.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23079
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
