ilya-biryukov added a comment. Thanks for a quick response, @kadircet! Leaving some first comments, will address the rest later.
In D56723#1361366 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56723#1361366>, @kadircet wrote: > One general comment: I am not really sure if the handling done in > `ParseCastExpression` is extensive enough. But IIUC, this should not cause > any regressions, rather should result in missing preferred types just as > before this patch ? Exactly, no regressions are expected, we should start providing a preferred type in more places after this change. This change is aiming to establish a well-defined pattern on how to add these types, more changes will follow to actually propagate the types in more cases. ================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp:360 + return update([&]() { + if (isa<BlockDecl>(S.CurContext)) { + if (sema::BlockScopeInfo *BSI = S.getCurBlock()) ---------------- kadircet wrote: > Is this check necessary? According to comments `getCurBlock` returns null if > there is no block. This was copy-pasted from the removed `codeCompleteReturn`. I'd keep it this way in the initial patch to make sure we don't change semantics in existing cases. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56723 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
