aaron.ballman added a comment. In D134453#3868821 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3868821>, @DoDoENT wrote:
> In D134453#3868789 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3868789>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> I still don't think "keep full NTTP type printing behind a policy, for those >> that want/need that" is a policy we should add. String printed names aren't >> meant to be a tool for type reflection - the AST can be queried for that >> information. > > I agree on that matter. > > However, I'm building my clang with this policy enabled by default to provide > my developers with GCC/MSVC-like verbosity in diagnostic messages. They > prefer it that way. @dblaikie -- but I thought we agreed that we would always print the full type, so the policy in this case is to print information *less* suitable for type reflection, right? However, given that we don't think we'll use that policy in the tree, can that policy can be kept in your downstream instead @DoDoENT? ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/PrettyPrinter.h:78 CleanUglifiedParameters(false), EntireContentsOfLargeArray(true), - UseEnumerators(true) {} + UseEnumerators(true), AlwaysIncludeTypeForNonTypeTemplateArgument(false) {} ---------------- Should this be defaulting to false? I thought we wanted to always include the type for NTTP printing? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
