parallaxe added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23236#557898, @dcoughlin wrote:
> Upon reflection, I don't think this is the right approach. > > Desugaring any AttributedType in the return type seems like a really, really > big hammer and could be an unexpected surprise for future attributed types > where this is not the right behavior. I think a better approach for the > nullability issue would be to update `lookThroughImplicitCasts()` in > NullabilityChecker.cpp to look though `ExprWithCleanups` expressions just > like it currently does for implicit casts. > > What do you think? As far as I understand the code, I would leave my change as it is. The part of the code I have changed tries to guess the return-type for the expression inside the return-stmt. At this point, no type could be computed (as RelatedRetType.isNull() is true). Assuming that any annotation that the return-type of the function has, will also apply to the return-type of the expression, might be misleading. The improvements of the warnings in nullability.m are a good sign of this (which would be lost when I would just make a change in the NullabilityChecker). Does that sound sensible? https://reviews.llvm.org/D23236 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
