aaron.ballman added a comment. > Which solution do you prefer?
If I understand the issue properly: both. :-) Having the AST track information that's been folded away is still useful -- some users are using the AST for purposes other than codegen, and the fact that a construct has been folded away is good to know about while still retaining as much AST fidelity as possible. On the other hand, from an AST matcher perspective, I think it's natural for users to write `ifStmt(isConstexpr())` and so that seems like a useful extension to the matcher. Further, it is extensible if the committee adds other constexpr foo statements. As for which solution gets used by this check to fix the PR, I don't have a strong opinion at this time (currently at WG14 meetings and a bit distracted). Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D46027 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
