erichkeane added a comment. In D132816#3799535 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132816#3799535>, @mizvekov wrote:
> In D132816#3799484 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132816#3799484>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> Patch generally seems OK to me. I would vastly prefer a better commit >> message explaining the intent here. Also, not quite sure I see the need for >> the extra bit? > > Well mechanically the low level intent is explained in the commit summary, > and it does give some benefits without any further patches as now we can > represent better in the AST some substitutions related to default arguments > in template template parameters, and some other substitutions performed in > concepts checking. > > But the important reason is that with resugaring, this will allow us to > produce a resugared type which still contains SubstNodes marking the original > substitutions, otherwise we would have to wipe that out and we wouldn't be > able to resugar these types again if needed. > > The extra bit is for saving storage when the underlying type is already > canonical, so that this patch has minimal memory usage impact. Woops, sorry about the 'extra bit' part, that was because of a comment I had and deleted, I was suggesting at one point that the bit should be a property of the 'underlying type' (that is, determine it based on the canonicalness of the underlying type), but I think I figured out why it wouldn't be necessary. As far as the "commit summary", the patch summary at least is empty... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132816/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132816 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
