mantognini added a comment. In D52879#1311177 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52879#1311177>, @riccibruno wrote:
> And moreover I believe this change is subtly incorrect for the following > reason: > The type that is passed into the constructor of the call expression is the > type > of the call expression, and not the return type. > > The difference between the return type and the type of the call expression is > that > 1.) References are dropped, and > 2.) For C++: The cv-qualifiers of non class pr-values are dropped, > 3.) For C: The cv-qualifiers are dropped. > > ( as can be seen in `FunctionType::getCallResultType` ) Could you clarify one thing for me: If I understood what you were saying, the type passed to CallExpr should not be ref-cv-qualified, is that right? In that case, couldn't we "simply" remove the ref + CV-qualifiers from ReturnTy? (`getNonReferenceType().withoutLocalFastQualifiers()`) Note: I cannot revert this //and// keep the test because the new ones will fail. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D52879/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D52879 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
