sammccall added a comment. In D59214#1919183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214#1919183>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> d5edcb90643104d6911da5c0ff44c4f33fff992f > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGd5edcb90643104d6911da5c0ff44c4f33fff992f>, > looking forward to seeing better error recovery. Thanks very much for your help Roman, I'm also sorry this has been difficult. The plan for error recovery is to add a RecoveryExpr to the AST that can represent the known structure of an invalid expression (e.g. a function call with no viable overloads - this has subexpressions and possibly a known type) instead of dropping it as we do today. This will be used to improve diagnostics and also expose a more meaningful AST to tools. A "transitive-has-errors" bit on Expr is needed as various places currently assume that if an Expr exists, the code is valid. (TypoExpr is a complicated special snowflake, and we should also be able to reduce the number of places that special-case it). Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
