rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35216#856415, @NoQ wrote:
> We already have the object's fields in the AST, with its AST record layout, > however field names and layouts are implementation-dependent, and it is > unsafe to try to understand how the specific standard library > implementation's layout works and what specific private fields we see in the > AST mean. This is precisely how the rest of the compiler handles `CXXStdInitializerListExpr`, is how it's intended to be used, and is really the only way it can work if you want to evaluate the members of `initializer_list<T>` rather than hardcoding their meaning. Consumers of `CXXStdInitializerListExpr` are expected to handle two cases: 1) the class has no base classes and two fields of type `const T*` and `size_t` (begin and size), and 2) the class has no base classes and two fields, both of type `const T*` (begin and end). (Unfortunately, we reject all other cases during CodeGen rather than in Sema, so you may still see them for now.) https://reviews.llvm.org/D35216 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
