rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/ExprCXX.h:4256
+/// is dependent.
+class CoawaitDependentExpr : public Expr {
+ SourceLocation KeywordLoc;
----------------
Rename -> `DependentCoawaitExpr`, to match our other `Dependent*Expr` classes.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/ExprCXX.h:4259
+ Stmt *Operand;
+ UnresolvedSet<16> CoawaitOperatorCandidates;
+
----------------
Would it make sense to store this as an `UnresolvedLookupExpr*` instead?
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprClassification.cpp:191
case Expr::DesignatedInitUpdateExprClass:
+ // FIXME How should we classify co_await expressions while they're still
+ // dependent?
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> @rsmith: What's the correct way to classify this type?
See above:
```
// Unresolved lookups and uncorrected typos get classified as lvalues.
// FIXME: Is this wise? Should they get their own kind?
```
It shouldn't ever matter what value category we give to a type-dependent
expression.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:6707-6708
+ // context or if the promise type has changed.
+ return getDerived().RebuildCoawaitDependentExpr(
+ E->getKeywordLoc(), Result.get(), E->getOperatorCandidates());
+}
----------------
This should ideally call into the same function we use for the non-dependent
case.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26057
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
