lebedev.ri marked 4 inline comments as done.
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
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.
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> 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.)
I don't feel like it, it's uglier.
The matcher is documented, `OpenMPClauseKind` is not documented.
Also, how will passing some random enum work with e.g. clang-query?
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersNarrowingTest.cpp:2283
+})";
+ EXPECT_TRUE(notMatchesWithOpenMP(Source0, Matcher));
+
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> 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.
> I'm not sure if breaking out the source code into the "SourceX" variables
> improves readability
It's not about readability. Inlining will break the build, rC354201.
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
