[PATCH] Canonicalize UnaryTransformType types when they don't have a known underlying type

[Vassil Vassilev via cfe-commits]

ping...
On 10/03/16 15:33, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
> Would this one more reasonable to commit. As you suggested if the base 
> type is dependent, create a unique canonical UnaryTransformType with 
> the canonical form of the base type as its base type and with 
> DependentTy as its underlying type, then use that canonical dependent 
> type as the underlying type for your sugared UnaryTransformType.
> The attached patch follows the getDecltypeType approach.
> --Vassil
> On 24/02/16 23:09, Richard Smith wrote:
>> A UnaryTransformType should itself be a canonical type if its BaseType
>> is dependent -- that is, its CanonicalType should be QualType(this,
>> 0). It should definitely not be treated as being canonically
>> equivalent to its BaseType.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Vassil Vassilev 
>> <v.g.vassilev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ping...
>>>
>>> On 07/01/16 08:09, Vassil Vassilev via cfe-commits wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>    I am attaching a fix for https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26014
>>>    To which type should I tie the canonical type of the unknown 
>>> underlying
>>> type? Currently it is tied to its BaseType.
>>>
>>>    Please review.
>>> --Vassil
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>>
>