aaronpuchert added a comment.
In D98664#2628591 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98664#2628591>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> As far as the changes go, these seem reasonable to me, though I find it a bit
> odd that these are expressions without a type whereas a `ParenExpr` has a
> type of the underlying parenthesized expression. e.g.,
>
> int x(0); // (0) has void type
> int y = (0); // (0) has int type
>
> I think my natural assumption is that the init expression would have the type
> of the thing that's being initialized.
In this case the `int` type will be assigned when the initialization is carried
out in Sema. The `void` will only remain if we are in a template and the
variable being initialized has a dependent type, so we can't carry out the
initialization. Also if there are errors. It's similar to `int y{0};` in that
regard.
If we don't know the type this syntax could be a constructor call, conversion
operator call, but also regular value initialization. So we can't use
`CXXUnresolvedConstructExpr` or something like that. That's my understanding.
> Despite that, I think the changes LG, but I'd like to hear from @rsmith.
So would I, also about whether to use the dependent type instead.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98664/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98664
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
