sammccall added a comment. In D107275#3182906 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107275#3182906>, @kadircet wrote:
> I am more worried about creating "incorrect" nodes in some cases. I think it > isn't valid in C/C++ for both LHS && RHS to be pointers/arrays in a subscript > expression, but I've got no idea about when it's diagnosed in clang and what > is put into the AST. > > ... we'll have a bunch of expressions with erroneous `ResultType` info which > might trip over some things. Yeah, I think this is a problem. To put it another way: - if `X is Foo*` and y is dependent, `x[y]` has type `Foo` *or* it is invalid - if we claim it has type `Foo` then either template-instantiation must check it's valid, or we may accept invalid code - accepting invalid code can turn into miscompiles via SFINAE Probably rebuilding during template instantiation does verify enough but I'm not 100% sure. In the motivating case, the subscript is a known integer type and the LHS is an array or pointer. In this case we don't have the above concern, and we also don't have my #1 above. So I'll restrict the code to cover that case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107275/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107275 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
