hintonda marked an inline comment as done.
hintonda added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/llvm/AvoidCastInConditionalCheck.cpp:18
+
+AST_MATCHER(Expr, isMacroID) { return Node.getExprLoc().isMacroID(); }
+} // namespace ast_matchers
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> hintonda wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > hintonda wrote:
> > > > @aaron.ballman: This matcher seems genuinely useful. What do you
> > > > think about moving it to ASTMatchers.h?
> > > I think that adding something like this might be a good idea. We don't
> > > have any notion of source locations in the AST matching syntax currently,
> > > and I'm not certain whether that's a good thing or not here. I'm mildly
> > > uncomfortable that this matcher operates on an `Expr` but then internally
> > > uses a source location from that expression and I wonder if we would
> > > rather introduce source location matching. For instance, what if the user
> > > cares about the difference between `getExprLoc()` and `getBeginLoc()` for
> > > some reason?
> > Well, you can attach it to whatever you want, so I'm not sure that's a
> > problem. Alternatively, you have to check each location yourself. In my
> > case, that was multiple places, so putting it in the matcher cleaned up the
> > code.
> >
> > I need to verify it, but it seems that it triggered when any macros were in
> > the range, but I need to look closer into that to understand the behavior.
> > I'll check it out and get back to you.
> > Well, you can attach it to whatever you want, so I'm not sure that's a
> > problem.
>
> How does a caller of this AST matcher indicate that they want it to match on
> `Node.getBeingLoc().isMacroID()` instead of what's written now? If the answer
> is "they write a different matcher", then that's what I think could be a
> problem. There's a lot of ways to get a source location (and a lot of
> different kinds of source locations), and I think matching on those can be
> very useful functionality. So I think the idea of the matcher is good, I'm
> just not certain whether we want it to look like `AST_MATCHER(Expr,
> isMacroID);` or `AST_MATCHER(SourceLocation, isMacroID);` or something else.
I'll workup a separate patch with tests and examples, and see if I can allay
your concerns.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59802/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59802
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
