gribozavr added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6390
+/// Given OpenMP directive, matches the first clause (out of all specified),
+/// that matches InnerMatcher.
+///
----------------
Other comments usually don't explain the interactions with inner matchers,
unless the semantics are unusual.
"Matches any clause in an OpenMP directive."
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6400
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P(OMPExecutableDirective, hasClause, internal::Matcher<OMPClause>,
+ InnerMatcher) {
----------------
Looking at other similar matches, they usually follow the naming pattern
`hasAny~`, WDYT?
(`hasAnyDeclaration`, `hasAnyConstructorInitializer` etc.)
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6411
+///
+/// Given, `ompDefaultClause()`:
+///
----------------
Please follow the existing comment style. Either:
```
Given
\code
<code snippet>
\endcode
<matcher expression> matches "<code snippet>".
```
or
```
Example: <matcher expression> matches "<code snippet>" in
\code
<code snippet>
\endcode
```
For example:
```
Given
\code
#pragma omp parallel default(none)
#pragma omp parallel default(shared)
#pragma omp parallel
\endcode
``ompDefaultClause()`` matches ``default(none)` and ``default(shared)``.
```
Similarly for other comments in this patch.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6433
+ return Node.getDefaultKind() == OMPC_DEFAULT_none;
+}
+
----------------
Also add `isSharedKind`? It is weird that we have one but not the other.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6449
+///
+/// NOTE: while the matcher takes the *matcher* for the OpenMP clause,
+/// it does *NOT* actually match that matcher. It only fetches the
----------------
"while this matcher"
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:6456
+ // Note that we have recieved a *matcher* for the clause, not the
+ // OpenMPClauseKind. We now need to extract the 'return' type of said
matcher,
+ // and convert it to the OpenMPClauseKind, so we can finally use that.
----------------
Why not make `isAllowedToContainClause` take an `OpenMPClauseKind` enum value?
I don't see right now advantages for taking a matcher. (For example, it can't
be a more complex matcher with inner matchers, it can't be a disjunction of
matchers etc.)
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersNarrowingTest.cpp:2283
+})";
+ EXPECT_TRUE(notMatchesWithOpenMP(Source0, Matcher));
+
----------------
I'm not sure if breaking out the source code into the "SourceX" variables
improves readability. WDYT about inlining the code into the EXPECT_TRUE code
like in other tests in this file?
If you want to break it out, I'd suggest to drop "`void x() {`" down to the
next line, so that all code lines start at the same column.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57112/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57112
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
