ilya-biryukov marked an inline comment as done.
ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2332
S->isSemanticForm() ? S->getSyntacticForm() : S, Queue));
TRY_TO(TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr(
S->isSemanticForm() ? S : S->getSemanticForm(), Queue));
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> gribozavr wrote:
> > Instead of adding a whole new if statement, could you wrap the second
> > existing TRY_TO in `if(shouldVisitImplicitCode())` ?
> Despite looking very similar, that would **not** be equivalent to the current
> version.
>
> For most init lists (that do not have alternative "form"), the following
> invariants hold:
> ```
> InitList* E = ...;
> assert(E->isSemanticForm());
> assert(E->isSyntacticForm());
> assert(E->getSynacticForm() == nullptr);
> ```
>
> This subtle fact means the current code does not traversed the list twice if
> they do not have an alternative form (either semantic or syntactic).
>
> Now, if we only run the first statement, we will call
> `TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr(S->getSyntacticForm())` and
> `S->getSyntacticForm()` returns `null`. So we don't traverse anything.
>
> I tried various ways to keep both calls, but they all ended up being too
> complicated, hence the final version. Let me know if you see a better way to
> address this.
To make the last sentence less confusing:
I tried various ways to keep **only two** calls, but they were too complicated
and I ended up introducing an extra call to `TraverseSyn...` instead.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64762/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64762
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
