eduucaldas added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:1070
+ Builder.markChildToken(
+ std::next(Builder.findToken(S->getCallee()->getEndLoc())),
+ syntax::NodeRole::OpenParen);
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> Could you add an assertion that it is indeed an open paren?
>
> Or, rather, due to the decltype test, it has to be a check, and a FIXME that
> says that the check should become an assertion.
Thanks! It is indeed what I should've done :)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:1159
case syntax::NodeKind::UnknownExpression:
- return RecursiveASTVisitor::WalkUpFromCXXOperatorCallExpr(S);
+ return WalkUpFromExpr(S);
default:
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> I don't understand this change to the unknown case, could you explain?
CXXOperatorCallExpr <- CallExpr <- Expr
In this change we added an overload for `WalkUpFromCallExpr`, so we started
intercepting the `WalkUp` at `CallExpr` instead of `Expr`, this works around
that.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTreeTest.cpp:2734
+| | `-'args'
+| `-'...'
+`-')' CloseParen
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> eduucaldas wrote:
> > Here there is a divergence between the grammar and the ClangAST.
> > According to the [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.post#nt:expression-list |
> > grammar ]] `...` would an optional element of `CallArguments`, but here
> > `...` is part of an expression.
> >
> > Perhaps I have used the wrong kind of `...`
> > `...` would an optional element of CallArguments
>
> I don't think so. Note that every element of initializer-list can have a
> `...` in it.
True! I hadn't seen it correctly!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86544/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86544
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
