mizvekov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h:4537
Expr *TOExpr;
+ bool IsUnqual;
----------------
You can use the Type Bitfields in order to avoid bumping the size of the node.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12910-12916
+ // FIXME:: is this assumption correct or do we need to do work here to find
+ // the common type sugar regarding the stripped qualifiers if only one side
+ // is unqual?
+ assert(cast<TypeOfType>(X)->isUnqual() == cast<TypeOfType>(Y)->isUnqual()
&&
+ "typeof vs typeof_unqual mismatch?");
+ return Ctx.getTypeOfType(Ctx.getQualifiedType(Underlying),
+ cast<TypeOfType>(X)->isUnqual());
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with this function, but I would expect you MIGHT need to? If
> only because they are the same AST node. Should 'unqual' version be its own
> node? I'm on the fence, as it is a LOT of code to do so, but also ends up
> being simpler in many places.
A qualified and an unqualified typeof could have the same underlying type, so
this assert can trip.
I think what makes most sense is to unify them to a qualified typeof in case
they differ, as that holds the underlying type unchanged:
```
return Ctx.getTypeOfType(Ctx.getQualifiedType(Underlying),
cast<TypeOfType>(X)->isUnqual() &&
cast<TypeOfType>(Y)->isUnqual());
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134286/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134286
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
