ychen added a comment. In D111283#3784648 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283#3784648>, @mizvekov wrote:
> In D111283#3784615 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283#3784615>, @ychen wrote: > >> `A<T>` is currently modeled as ElaboratedType. It was >> `TemplateSpecializationType` before. Reading comments for `ElaboratedType`, >> it looks like sugar type might not be needed here? > > Ah you might be seeing an ElaboratedTYpe here, where there was none before, > perhaps because of https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374, and not because of this > patch. > > Yeah ElaboratedType is just sugar that should have no effect on partial > ordering. But then I think no sugar should have effect on partial ordering. > What is stopping you from just looking at the canonical type instead? On a > canonical type, you would never see an ElaboratedType node, or a > TemplateSpecializationType which is not dependent. Thanks for the link. I'm not blocked by any of these patches, instead just trying to have a mental model of when to expect the sugared type :-). For partial ordering, the `TemplateSpecializationType` could be dependent, since the injected template arguments are dependent, I guess that's the reason there is the `ElaboratedType`? > Is this related to the AutoType canonicalization issues we were discussing in > the other patch of yours? Nope. I found this AST difference while investigating D133683 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133683>. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
