njames93 marked 2 inline comments as done.
njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2888-2890
+/// class Foo;
+/// class Bar : Foo {};
+/// class Baz : Bar {};
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> It seems like these aren't really part of the example?
They are, just not directly. Shows it won't match any old base specifier.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3537
AST_POLYMORPHIC_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(
- hasType,
- AST_POLYMORPHIC_SUPPORTED_TYPES(Expr, FriendDecl, ValueDecl,
- CXXBaseSpecifier),
+ hasType, AST_POLYMORPHIC_SUPPORTED_TYPES(Expr, FriendDecl, ValueDecl),
internal::Matcher<Decl>, InnerMatcher, 1) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This is undoing a change that was just added less than two weeks ago, so I
> think the potential for breaking code is small. That said, can you explain
> why you think `hasClass` is a better approach than `hasType`?
Yeah, as that change hasn't reached landed onto a release branch breaking code
shouldn't be an issue, If it was I'd leave it in.
- `hasType` is very generic, whereas `hasClass` is specific to what a
`CXXBaseSpecifier` supports.
- It makes the matchers marginally simpler.
`hasDirectBase(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Base"))))` vs
`hasDirectBase(hasClass(hasName("Base")))`
- In the documentation it also specifies that `hasClass` takes a
`Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>, making it more user friendly.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
