wolfgangp added a comment.
> Clang (with patch) > 3, 5, 4, 5, 7 > 9, 11, 10, 11, 14 > > So that's somewhat problematic - we shouldn't visit 11 at all. (but we are > today, as is GCC... so maybe NBD?) Well, if op&& is overloaded, wouldn't we lose the short-circuit property? If so it makes sense to visit 11. > I think using the end of the condition is problematic/confusing. I'm not sure > why this doesn't show up in the primitive value version, but it seems like it > should (& we should end up stepping to the end of the condition (which would > be the close paren of the function call, not the close paren of the 'if ()')) There is short-circuit in the primitive value version, so we wouldn't stop there. > Perhaps we should use the close paren of the 'if ()' but tehre's no source > location for that readily available - I guess the way to get there is to > navigate to the next token from the end of the condition expression... ? I agree, The close paren of the if() would be better. http://reviews.llvm.org/D8822 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
