================
@@ -633,13 +633,30 @@ class InlayHintVisitor : public
RecursiveASTVisitor<InlayHintVisitor> {
}
if (auto *AT = D->getType()->getContainedAutoType()) {
- if (AT->isDeduced() && !D->getType()->isDependentType()) {
- // Our current approach is to place the hint on the variable
- // and accordingly print the full type
- // (e.g. for `const auto& x = 42`, print `const int&`).
- // Alternatively, we could place the hint on the `auto`
- // (and then just print the type deduced for the `auto`).
- addTypeHint(D->getLocation(), D->getType(), /*Prefix=*/": ");
+ if (AT->isDeduced()) {
+ QualType T;
+ // If the type is dependent, HeuristicResolver *may* be able to
+ // resolve it to something that's useful to print. In other
+ // cases, it can't, and the resultng type would just be printed
+ // as "<dependent type>", in which case don't hint it at all.
+ if (D->getType()->isDependentType()) {
+ if (D->hasInit()) {
+ QualType Resolved = Resolver->resolveExprToType(D->getInit());
+ if (Resolved != AST.DependentTy) {
----------------
zyn0217 wrote:
Yes, but my question was why we don't call isDependentType instead, is there
any specific issue that we have to compare with the builtin type?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156284
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
