Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd8493847 with Richard Smith.
Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).
This was originally committed in 277623f4d5
Reverted in f9ad1d1c77 due to breakages
outside of clang - lldb seems to have some strange/strong dependence on
"char [N]" versus "char[N]" when printing strings (not due to that name
appearing in DWARF, but probably due to using clang to stringify type
names) that'll need to be addressed, plus a few other odds and ends in
other subprojects (clang-tools-extra, compiler-rt, etc).
Looks like lldb has some issues with this - somehow it causes lldb to
treat a "char[N]" type as an array of chars (prints them out
individually) but a "char [N]" is printed as a string. (even though the
DWARF doesn't have this string in it - it's something to do with the
string lldb generates for itself using clang)
This reverts commit 277623f4d5.
Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd8493847 with Richard Smith.
Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).
This improves diagnostic (& important to me, DWARF) accuracy - otherwise
there could be ambiguities between "std::nullptr_t" and some user-defined
type that's /actually/ "nullptr_t" defined in the global namespace.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110044
outer levels as retained rather than omitting their arguments.
This better reflects what's going on (we're performing a substitution
while still inside a template), and in theory is more correct, but I've
not found a testcase where it matters in practice (largely because we
don't allow alias templates to be declared inside a function).
Fixed AST dumping of SubstNonTypeTemplateParm[Pack]Expr to demonstrate
that we're properly substituting through dependent alias templates. (We
can't deduce properly through these yet, but we can at least produce the
right input to template argument deduction.)
No functionality change intended.
specializations and those that are done as part of rewrites.
Do not create Subst* nodes in the latter. We previously had a hybrid of
these two behaviors where we would only create some Subst* nodes but not
others during deduction guide rewrites.
No functional change intended, but the resulting ASTs are more
principled.
inner non-type pack at a different index.
We previously considered the index of the outer pack (which would refer
to an unrelated template parameter) to be deduced by deducing the inner
pack, because we inspected the (largely meaningless) type of an expanded
non-type template parameter pack.
Nathan Ridge