aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D98664#2628742 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98664#2628742>, @aaronpuchert wrote: > 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. Ah, thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. >> 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. I'm giving my LG, but you should wait for a few days before landing to see if @rsmith has concerns. 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
