hokein added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ComputeDependence.cpp:502 + // dependent type), or the type is known and dependent, or it has + // type-dependent subexpressions auto D = toExprDependence(E->getType()->getDependence()) | ---------------- sammccall wrote: > hmm, I'd missed the type-dependent subexpressions question. > If there are type-dependent subexpressions, but a non-dependent type was > specified for the RecoveryExpr, is the expr type-dependent? > > This is the part that I think we have discretion over. > The definition of type-dependent does say "any type-dependent subexpression" > but then lays out a list of exceptions such as casts, which are not > type-dependent even if their argument is. What these have in common is that > the type is known. > > So I think this comes down to whether it's the caller's job to work this out, > or we want to conservatively call these expressions dependent. > > I think the former is probably better - marking the expression as > type-dependent but not having its actual type be dependent doesn't serve any > purpose I'm aware of. It's also inconsistent with the informal definition of > type-dependence described earlier in this patch. > > So the comment should describe the current state, but maybe a FIXME to remove > the type-dependent subexpressions clause? yeah, I think we should respect to actual type of RecoveryExpr, added a fixme. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
