emilio added a comment.
I sent http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-May/053703.html
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32566
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL301902: [libclang] Revert rL301328 and add tests for the
regressions introduced. (authored by emilio).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32566?vs=96838&id=97407#toc
Repository:
rL LL
rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Yes, let's first revert back to the clang 4.0 behavior, then please mail
cfe-dev to discuss what the right behavior should be.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32566
__
emilio added a comment.
I'm personally fine with this behavior in particular, given you can check the
cursor you're querying to know if it's a typedef or alias specialization. Of
course I'm not the only one using libclang, though, so I'd be interested in
hearing other people's opinion.
I think
rsmith added a comment.
I'm OK with this from a mechanical perspective. But there's also a libclang
design question here: what should the libclang methods to query template
arguments for a type cursor representing an alias template specialization
actually do? Should there be some way for a libc
emilio created this revision.
emilio added a project: clang-c.
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D32348#738704
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32566
Files:
clang/test/Index/print-type.cpp
clang/tools/libclang/CXType.cpp
Index: clang/tools/libclang/CXType.cpp
==
