davrec added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12218
+ CTN,
+ NExpX && NExpY ? Optional<unsigned>(std::min(*NExpX, *NExpY)) : None);
+ }
----------------
I'm not clear on how `NExpX` could not equal `NExpY` - could you add a test
which demonstrates this case?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12804
+ return QualType();
+ SmallVector<TemplateArgument, 8> As;
+ if (getCommonTemplateArguments(Ctx, As, TX->template_arguments(),
----------------
Nit: "As" -> "Args", since that's common elsewhere
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12872
}
SplitQualType SX = X.split(), SY = Y.split();
----------------
It would be very helpful to incorporate your description and the description
from D111283 as comments in this function. E.g. something like the following
...
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12874
SplitQualType SX = X.split(), SY = Y.split();
- if (::removeDifferentTopLevelSugar(SX, SY))
- SX.Ty = ::getCommonType(*this, SX.Ty, SY.Ty).getTypePtr();
-
+ Qualifiers QX, QY;
+ auto Xs = ::unwrapSugar(SX, QX), Ys = ::unwrapSugar(SY, QY);
----------------
```
// Desugar SX and SY, setting the sugar and qualifiers aside into Xs and Ys/QX
and QY,
// until we reach their underlying "canonical nodes". (Note these are not
necessarily
// canonical types, as their child types may still be sugared.)
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12876
+ auto Xs = ::unwrapSugar(SX, QX), Ys = ::unwrapSugar(SY, QY);
+ if (SX.Ty != SY.Ty) {
+ SX.Ty = ::getCommonNonSugarTypeNode(*this, SX.Ty, SY.Ty).getTypePtr();
----------------
```
// The canonical nodes differ. Build a common canonical node out of the two,
// including any sugar shared by their child types.
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12878
+ SX.Ty = ::getCommonNonSugarTypeNode(*this, SX.Ty, SY.Ty).getTypePtr();
+ } else {
+ while (!Xs.empty() && !Ys.empty() && Xs.back().Ty == Ys.back().Ty) {
----------------
```
// The canonical nodes were identical: we may have desugared too much.
// Add any common sugar back in.
```
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp:12890
+ assert(QX == QY);
+
+ while (!Xs.empty() && !Ys.empty()) {
----------------
```
// Even though the remaining sugar nodes in Xs and Ys differ, some may be of
the same
// type class and have common sugar in their child types. Walk up these nodes,
// adding in any such sugar.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130308/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130308
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
