steveire added a comment. In D56444#1351096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351096>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D56444#1351056 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351056>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > Given that, I kind of think we should have functionDecl() match only > > functions, and give users some other way to match the semantic declarations > > in a consistent manner. Alternatively, we could decide semantics are what > > we want to match (because it's what the AST encodes) and instead we give > > users a way to request to only match syntax. > > > I believe matching the implied semantic nodes is how closer to how matchers > behave in general (corresponding to the fact that the ASTMatcher > RecursiveASTVisitor sets `shouldVisitImplicitCode` to true). e.g. > > $ cat ~/test.cc > void foo() { for (char c : "abc") {} } > $ bin/clang-query ~/test.cc -- > clang-query> set output detailed-ast > clang-query> match binaryOperator() > > Match #1: > > Binding for "root": > BinaryOperator 0x471f038 </usr/local/google/home/sammccall/test.cc:1:26> > '_Bool' '!=' > |-ImplicitCastExpr 0x471f008 <col:26> 'const char *':'const char *' > <LValueToRValue> > | `-DeclRefExpr 0x471efc8 <col:26> 'const char *':'const char *' lvalue Var > 0x471ed48 '__begin1' 'const char *':'const char *' > `-ImplicitCastExpr 0x471f020 <col:26> 'const char *':'const char *' > <LValueToRValue> > `-DeclRefExpr 0x471efe8 <col:26> 'const char *':'const char *' lvalue Var > 0x471edb8 '__end1' 'const char *':'const char *' > etc > > > Obviously this is only true when such nodes are present in the AST at the > time of matching (if I'm understanding Manuel's comment correctly). Note that I've fixed that too, http://ec2-18-191-7-3.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/7sLs34 but both the matcher and the dumper need to get the new behavior at the same time. I agree that we shouldn't match on implicit nodes. See also http://ec2-18-191-7-3.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/sNny36 See how Manuel had to explain this here years ago: https://youtu.be/VqCkCDFLSsc?t=1748 There's more that we should do to simplify AST dumping and matching: http://ec2-18-191-7-3.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/uBshw1 My point being that we shouldn't try to rush some way of treating lambdas like functionDecl()s or anything like that. I suggest not trying to make any such drastic changes for 8.0, try to fix the bug in a minimal way if possible, and have a more considered approach to the future of AST Matchers for after the release. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
