rsmith added a comment.
Argyrios, I'd appreciate your thoughts here.
================
Comment at: tools/libclang/CIndex.cpp:6670-6694
@@ -6669,1 +6669,27 @@
+bool clang_Cursor_hasLocalStorage(CXCursor C) {
+ if (C.kind != CXCursor_VarDecl) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ const Decl *D = getCursorDecl(C);
+ if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(D)) {
+ return VD->hasLocalStorage();
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+bool clang_Cursor_isStaticLocal(CXCursor C) {
+ if (C.kind != CXCursor_VarDecl) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ const Decl *D = getCursorDecl(C);
+ if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(D)) {
+ return VD->isStaticLocal();
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
----------------
I don't think the names of these are really specific enough for what they do.
As members of `VarDecl`, they're good enough, but as operations on a general
`Cursor`, it's less so. For instance, temporary objects in C++ might also have
local storage or be static locals. Renaming `isStaticLocal` to
`isStaticLocalVar` would help.
`hasLocalStorage` is not really a very user-friendly name for this
functionality, even though it currently matches our C++ API (the C API has
long-term stability guarantees whereas the C++ API does not, so we need to take
more care when naming C API functions, even though matching the C++ API does
generally make the C API more user-friendly). `isStaticLocalVar` versus
`isNonStaticLocalVar` might be better if you don't want to go the enum route.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D10834
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
