lukasza added a comment.
FWIW, a non-owner LGTM:
- CXXNewExpr seems very similar to CallExpr, so it makes sense that
hasDeclaration would behave similarily for both of these expressions (i.e.
matching the "callee")
- The issues we've been trying to work through in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D243
lukasza updated the summary for this revision.
lukasza updated this revision to Diff 75661.
lukasza added a comment.
Reverted changes in the patch that are not related to the issue of
hasDeclaration not matching *anything* in some cases.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24361
Files:
include/clang/A
lukasza added a comment.
Richard - what are the next steps for this patch?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24361
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
lukasza added inline comments.
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:2119
@@ +2118,3 @@
+ "template \n"
+ "void Function(Namespace::Template param) {\n"
+ " param.Method();\n"
klimek wrote:
> Given your use case: why do we
lukasza updated the summary for this revision.
lukasza updated this revision to Diff 72350.
lukasza marked an inline comment as done.
lukasza added a comment.
- Added test where both TemplateSpecializationType and TypedefType are present
and both should match regardless of code order inside
HasD
lukasza added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersInternal.h:750
@@ +749,3 @@
+else if (auto *ET = Node->getAs())
+ return matchesSpecialized(ET->getNamedType(), Finder, Builder);
+else if (auto *TST = Node->getAs())
luka
lukasza added a comment.
Richard, could you please take a look?
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersInternal.h:750
@@ +749,3 @@
+else if (auto *ET = Node->getAs())
+ return matchesSpecialized(ET->getNamedType(), Finder, Builder);
+else if (auto *TST = N
lukasza added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24268#535463, @rsmith wrote:
> This patch looks great, thank you! Do you have an SVN account or do you need
> someone to commit this for you?
I don't have an SVN account. Could you please commit the patch for me?
https://reviews.llvm.org
lukasza added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:487-489
@@ +486,5 @@
+ // Traverses template parameter lists of either a DeclaratorDecl or TagDecl.
+ template ::value ||
+ std::is_base_of::value>::type>
+ bool TraverseDeclTemplateParamete
lukasza added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1728
@@ -1708,2 +1727,3 @@
+ TRY_TO(TraverseDeclTemplateParameterLists(D));
TRY_TO(TraverseNestedNameSpecifierLoc(D->getQualifierLoc()));
I think that tweaks of EnumDecl trave
lukasza updated the summary for this revision.
lukasza updated this revision to Diff 70483.
lukasza added a comment.
Addressing CR feedbackfrom rsmith@.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24268
Files:
include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h
unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp
Index:
lukasza created this revision.
lukasza added a reviewer: rsmith.
lukasza added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: klimek.
The unit tests in this patch demonstrate the need to traverse template
parameter lists of DeclaratorDecls (e.g. VarDecls, CXXMethodDecls) and
TagDecls (e.g.
12 matches
Mail list logo