[cfe-dev] CXXBaseSpecifiers not returning same Type

[Daniel Dilts]

If I use either of those methods, it will also match typedefs, right?  How
would I modify that so that it doesn't match typedefs, but will match
different nested name specifiers?


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:

> Clang has both sugared and concrete types.  By default, getting the type
> of some AST node will give you information about the type as written.  In
> this case, two different nested name specifiers were used, so there are two
> different types.
>
> If you want to compare types for equivalence, use the canonical types, or
> simply use ASTContext::hasSameType(QualType, QualType).
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Daniel Dilts <diltsman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the code below I would expect the CXXRecordDecls for BaseClass1 to
>> have the same Type as both base class specifiers.
>>
>> When I use getTypeForDecl() on the CXXRecordDecls I get the same Type*.
>> When I use getType().getTypePtr() on the two CXXBaseSpecifiers I get
>> different a Type* for each one, neither of which is the same as the
>> CXXRecordDecl's Type*.
>>
>> Namespace N {
>>   class BaseClass1;
>> }
>> class N::BaseClass1 {
>> };
>> class DerivedClass1 : public N::BaseClass1 {
>> };
>> class DerivedClass2 : public ::N::BaseClass1 {
>> };
>>
>> This seems to indicate to me that the declared/defined class is of a
>> different type from the base specifiers, and the base specifiers differ in
>> type from each other.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong with this?  I really just want to see if the
>> CXXBaseSpecifier matches the CXXRecordDecl.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140701/d1e95fef/attachment.html>