================
@@ -415,9 +443,55 @@ class ASTNodeTraverser
if (!T->isSugared())
Visit(T->getPattern());
}
+ void VisitAutoType(const AutoType *T) {
+ for (const auto &Arg : T->getTypeConstraintArguments())
+ Visit(Arg);
+ }
// FIXME: ElaboratedType, DependentNameType,
// DependentTemplateSpecializationType, ObjCObjectType
+ // For TypeLocs, we automatically visit the inner type loc (pointee type
etc).
+ // We must explicitly visit other lexically-nested nodes.
+ void VisitFunctionProtoTypeLoc(FunctionProtoTypeLoc TL) {
----------------
sam-mccall wrote:
> Do we need to explicitly visit the return type?
No, the inner/next type loc of a FunctionTypeLoc is the return type.
> function declaration with a regular return type
This one is already there
> one with a trailing return type
Added. The trailing return type is visited as the inner type loc. AFAICT the
AST has no TypeLoc for the `auto` in `auto x() -> int`.
> another test with a lambda expression
I'm not sure what such a test should do.
`[](){}` doesn't really have meaningful TypeLocs, and `[]()->int{}` just has
the BuiltinTypeLoc for int.
Do you want a dump of the (implicit) call operator's typeloc?
> good to have a test case involving a function template
added
> What about things like exception specifications? e.g., void func() throw(int);
Added.
Current behavior is to print the exception types, with no location information.
The AST does not have a TypeLoc for `int` here. It does have a SourceRange for
the exception spec, which we could potentially include.
(I don't think this is common+useful enough to do in this initial patch though)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65484
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
