shuaiwang added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50953#1230138, @JonasToth wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50953#1230003, @shuaiwang wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50953#1229287, @JonasToth wrote: > > > > > What happens to pointers in a typedef (in the sense of `*` instead of > > > `&`)? > > > > > > I checked around and I believe reference type is the only type we're > > explicitly matching right now. We'll need to handle carefully when handling > > pointer types in the future. > > > We match on pointers as values. So figure this out `int * >const< ptr = > nullptr`. > And the constness transformation is especially intersting for pointer > typedefs, because in `typedef int * IntPtr; const IntPtr p1; IntPtr const > p2;` p1 and p2 are different things. It would be nice if you could check, > that the value semantic of the pointer is detected through the typedef as > well. Added test cases verifying we're treating pointers as values. I feel constness doesn't matter much since we're treating them as values and both const values & non-const values are just values. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D50953 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
