hokein added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:12880 return Result.getValueOr(QualType()); } ---------------- sammccall wrote: > hokein wrote: > > sammccall wrote: > > > Wouldn't we be better to handle undeduced type here rather than in the > > > loop? > > > > > > Not sure if it practically matters, but given: `auto f(); double f(int); > > > f(0,0);` > > > the code in this patch will discard auto and yield `double`, while > > > treating this as multiple candidates --> unknown return type seems more > > > correct. > > > > > I feel like yield `double` is better in your given example -- in this case, > > double is the only candidate, so it is reasonable to preserve the `double` > > type. > There are two overloads, one with `double` and one with an unknown type. > They're both candidates for the function being called, and I'm not sure we > have any reason to believe the first is more likely. > > Two counterarguments I can think of: > - the unknown type is probably also double, as overloads tend to have the > same return type > - the cost of being wrong isn't so high, so it's OK to not be totally sure > > And maybe there are others... these are probably OK justifications but subtle > so I'd like to see a comment tothat effect. thanks, I think the behavior you suggest is more reasonable -- in the given example, go-to-def will yield two candidates, it is wired to catch one of the return type (not the other). Addressed it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87350/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87350 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
