ABataev added a comment. In D67978#1684104 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978#1684104>, @lildmh wrote:
> In D67978#1683166 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978#1683166>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D67978#1683146 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978#1683146>, @lildmh wrote: > > > > > HI Alexey, the ast print test is already there. Because I didn't check > > > the mapper for array type before, such code will always not report any > > > error, and ast print test is correct. Codegen test belongs to the other > > > patch I released. It fits that patch much better. > > > > > > How is this possible? If we did not have support for the array type, we > > could not have correct handling of such types in successful tests. > > > The ast print for array with mapper was correct because the mapper id is > still with the array type. Without this patch, the problem is it will not > look up the mapper declaration associated with the id, and as a result, the > codegen is not correct. I found this problem when I tested the codegen. Then another one question. Why we don't emit the diagnostics if the original type is not a class, struct or union? We just ignore this situation currently but we should not. The error message must be emitted. I think that's why the ast-print test works correctly though it should not. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67978 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
