aaron.ballman added a subscriber: sammccall.
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:5503
+ FunctionDecl,
+ CoroutineBodyStmt),
internal::Matcher<Stmt>, InnerMatcher) {
----------------
ccotter wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I'm not certain it makes sense to me to add `CoroutineBodyStmt` to
> > `hasBody` -- in this case, it doesn't *have* a body, it *is* the body.
> With respect to `hasBody()`, my intent was to treat the CoroutineBodyStmt
> node as analogous to a FunctionDecl or WhileStmt. WhileStmts have information
> like the loop condition expression, as CoroutineBodyStmts contain the
> synthesized expressions such as the initial suspend Stmt. Both WhileStmts and
> CoroutineBodyStmts then have the `getBody()` methods, usually a CompoundStmt
> for WhileStmts and either a CompoundStmt or TryStmt for CoroutineBodyStmts.
>
> Ultimately, I wanted to be able to match the CoroutineBodyStmt's
> `function-body` (using the grammar) from the standard, e.g.,
> `coroutineBodyStmt(hasBody(compoundStmt().bind(...)))`. If there is a
> different approach you'd recommend that's in line with the AST matcher design
> strategy, I can use that instead.
What concerns me about the approach you have is that it doesn't model the AST.
A coroutine body statement is a special kind of function body, so it does not
itself *have* a body. So this is a bit like adding `CompoundStmt` to the
`hasBody` matcher in that regard.
To me, the correct way to surface this would be to write the matcher:
`functionDecl(hasBody(coroutineBodyStmt()))` to get to the coroutine body, and
if you want to bind to the compound statement, I'd imagine
`functionDecl(hasBody(coroutineBodyStmt(has(compoundStmt().bind(...)))))` would
be the correct approach. My thinking there is that we'd use the `has()`
traversal matcher to go from the coroutine body to any of the extra information
it tracks (the compound statement, the promise, allocate/deallocate, etc).
Pinging @klimek and @sammccall for additional opinions.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140794/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140794
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
