On 01/29/2014 12:49 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
By the way, this recycling of TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM + name seems weird to me too, I noticed it a couple of times already (I think it shows in an open diagnostic issue too). I think the alternative would an additional TREE_CODE and a lot of uses of it wherever now we just say TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM (eg, in pt.c). Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, I don't know if Jason *actually* tried the idea in his local trees.
I didn't. We represent auto as a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM because auto deduction works like template deduction, and if we wanted to call it something else we would need to replace it with a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM in order to do deduction, plus check for auto when checking whether a type is dependent. So, doable, but kind of a pain.
Jason
