steveire added a comment. In D56444#1351150 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351150>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D56444#1351130 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351130>, @steveire wrote: > > > In D56444#1351125 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351125>, @aaron.ballman > > wrote: > > > > > if the location isn't somewhere in user code, then don't consider the > > > node or its children for traversal. However, that may be insufficient and > > > equally as mysterious behavior. > > > > > > That is exactly what I've implemented. I skip invisible nodes in matching > > and dumping: > > http://ec2-18-191-7-3.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/EuYjAn > > > So what happens when someone asks about the parent of an invisible node? > > e.g. `match(hasParent(decl().bind("parent")), X, Ctx)` where X is the > `operator()` function of a lambda class. (This is basically the case in the > bug that this patch fixes) Assuming that whether to skip invisible nodes is part of the `Ctx`, the `X` would simply not be in context, just like if the `X` were not in the `TraversalScope` of the `Ctx`. 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
