rsmith added a comment. In D91659#2458872 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91659#2458872>, @rnk wrote:
> In D91659#2458639 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91659#2458639>, @rsmith wrote: > >> > > What is the issue with the current structure, ActOnTag produces the wrong AST > node, an ElaboratedType, but we want to produce a TypedefType? I don't think we want to introduce a new declaration at all in this compatibility case; I think we want to act as if the `enum` keyword were omitted entirely (the caller should set a different kind of `TypeSpecType` on the `DeclSpec` in this case). Maybe the simplest thing would be to add a new optional `TypeResult*` out parameter to `ActOnTag` that's only set by the call in `ParseEnumSpecifier` (and then only for the `TUK_Reference` case). Then `ParseEnumSpecifier` can set a `TST_typename` type specifier in this case instead of a `TST_enum`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91659/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91659 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
