rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Does it still make sense for us to have a `UO_Coawait` at all? As I recall, the only purpose it ever had was to represent a dependent `co_await` expression that couldn't yet be resolved to a `CoawaitExpr`. But now we have (and need!) a separate `DependentCoawaitExpr` node to store unqualified lookup results, it seems that the `UnaryOperator` portion of the representation serves no purpose (and as seen in this patch, it's getting in the way). Can we remove it? Anyway, this change LGTM for now. ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:146 + + // Skip paththrough operator co_await (present when awaiting on an LValue). + if (auto *UO = dyn_cast<UnaryOperator>(E)) ---------------- paththrough -> passthrough ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:148-149 + if (auto *UO = dyn_cast<UnaryOperator>(E)) + if (UO->getOpcode() == UO_Coawait) + E = UO->getSubExpr(); + ---------------- Indent. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31627 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
