aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2672
+ BaseName, 1) {
+ assert(!BaseName.empty());
+ return isDirectlyDerivedFrom(hasName(BaseName))
----------------
AntonBikineev wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I don't think this assertion is reasonable -- we should instead test this
> > as a predicate and return false if the base name is empty.
> It's done in the same way as for existing isDerivedFrom and
> isSameOrDerivedFrom matchers. Maybe it would make sense to change all of
> them, but I guess it should rather be a separate commit.
I'm fine with doing it in a follow-up commit, but it should be done (it
shouldn't assert on invalid input, only on thought-to-be impossible situations,
generally speaking).
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2682
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(CXXRecordDecl, isDirectlyDerivedFrom,
+ internal::Matcher<NamedDecl>, Base, 0) {
----------------
You should register this in Registry.cpp as an overload, like we do for
`isDerivedFrom()` and `isSameOrDerivedFrom()`.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65092/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65092
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
