shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:390
- if (isa<RecordType>(ElemType.getTypePtr())) {
+ if (ElemType->isRecordType()) {
const Record *R = BasePtr.getElemRecord();
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> The difference between these two is that `isRecordType()` is looking at the
> canonical type whereas `isa<>` is looking at the type under inspection rather
> than the canonical type. I'd expect these to have the same behavior in most
> cases, but only matter for cases involving typedefs.
>
> I think you're correct about the test case below not needing these particular
> changes -- at least, I'm not seeing what's changed that should impact the
> test. Should this be split into two changes? 1) Expose the test, 2) Make this
> functional change + add a new test where the canonical type is different to
> demonstrate the fix.
+1
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143334/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143334
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
