steveire added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:2607 + EXPECT_TRUE(matches(Code, traverse(TK_AsIs, M))); + EXPECT_FALSE(matches(Code, traverse(TK_IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource, M))); + } ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Can you help me to better understand the proposed change? I find this to be > surprising behavior -- the thing the user wrote in the source are the binding > declarations, the hidden thing they didn't write in the source was the > decomposition declaration. e.g., the user introduced some names `f`, `s`, and > `t` in the declaration so I would imagine that these *are* spelled in source. > What I don't think is necessarily spelled in source is the decomposition > declaration for the `int[3]` to bind to. So I was expecting this to be > `EXPECT_TRUE` instead of `EXPECT_FALSE`. > Can you help me to better understand the proposed change? I find this to be > surprising behavior -- the thing the user wrote in the source are the binding > declarations, the hidden thing they didn't write in the source was the > decomposition declaration. e.g., the user introduced some names `f`, `s`, and > `t` in the declaration so I would imagine that these *are* spelled in source. > What I don't think is necessarily spelled in source is the decomposition > declaration for the `int[3]` to bind to. Indeed. The `bindingDecl` matches, but the `has(expr())` part does not, after this change: https://godbolt.org/z/Mqb9Mx Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95740/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95740 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
