lebedev.ri added a comment. In D59214#1926978 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214#1926978>, @sammccall wrote:
> 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). Yep, sounds reasonable, thank you for the explanation; that does match my expectations as i was paying //some// attention to the previous related discussions. 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
