mizvekov added a comment. In D133468#3799522 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468#3799522>, @erichkeane wrote:
> as far as `Divergent`, I wonder if we should call it something more > descriptive, since it isn't just that it 'differs', it is that it is a > non-canonical version, right? Well, currently without this patch TypedefTypes and UsingTypes can already have a non-canonical underlying type, it's just that we only store a reference to the declaration and we access the non-canonical type from there. The canonical type is still stored in the type itself, like any other type of course. "Divergent" is a term I came up with, but I would be all ears for a better alternative. I considered that calling it just `Different` but that didn't sound right, even though its synonymous. I considered calling it `hasDifferentUnderlyingTypefromDeclaration` but felt that was too verbose. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
