YexuanXiao wrote: > Thank you for this! > > I'd like to better understand the need for the changes because I have a few > concerns. One concern is about compile time performance. But also, this means > downstream consumers of the AST are going to have to react because they used > to be able to look for a `size_t` node directly and now they have to resolve > a qualified type instead. This may be acceptable, but it seems disruptive too. > > Also, there should be more test coverage for the changes showing that we > actually do get the types correct in all the various circumstances.
The current inlay hint effect of clangd is `auto a: unsigned long = sizeof(int);`, which is misleading. At the same time, it eliminates certain conversions that clang-tidy or other cleanup tools might warn about. The C and C++ standards state that the result type of such expressions is `size_t`, so while this may disrupt some downstream assumptions about prior implementations, it aligns more closely with the standard. I believe this is worthwhile, maybe there's a faster way to implement it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136542 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
