GorNishanov added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31627#761320, @rsmith wrote:
> 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. Thank you for the review! I'll see if I can remove UO_Coawait in a separate patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D31627 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
