I've commit in r247885 and r247886. I will add something to the
release notes, and watch the bots to see if any tests got missed
(since I did my development on Windows).
Thank you!
~Aaron
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> LG, ship it.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:03 PM Aa
LG, ship it.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:03 PM Aaron Ballman
wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch for clang-tools-extra that does not have
> my in-progress, not-related-to-any-of-this code in it. ;-)
>
> ~Aaron
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
> > Quick ping. I know th
Attached is an updated patch for clang-tools-extra that does not have
my in-progress, not-related-to-any-of-this code in it. ;-)
~Aaron
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> Quick ping. I know this is a fairly gigantic patch, but I'm hoping for
> a relatively quick review turna
Quick ping. I know this is a fairly gigantic patch, but I'm hoping for
a relatively quick review turnaround because of potential merge
conflicts with people doing a fair amount of work on clang-tidy
lately. Everything should be pretty straight-forward (it's all just
renames, no semantic changes int
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM Aaron Ballman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Dani
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Btw, I think generating them, potentially into several different headers to
> work around the compile time issue isn't such a bad idea.
I'm not going to start with this approach, but think it may be worth
exploring at some point. ;-)
~Aaron
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Ok. I am happy with this then.
>
> (Just personally grumpy having to write
> cxxRecordDecl(has(cxxConstructorDecl(..))) in the future ;-) ).
I share your grumpiness about the cxxConstructorDecl, but probably
won't share it when we add objcCo
Btw, I think generating them, potentially into several different headers to
work around the compile time issue isn't such a bad idea.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Feel free to rename the AST nodes :)
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 2:44 PM Daniel Jasper wrote:
>
>> Ok. I a
Feel free to rename the AST nodes :)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 2:44 PM Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Ok. I am happy with this then.
>
> (Just personally grumpy having to write
> cxxRecordDecl(has(cxxConstructorDecl(..))) in the future ;-) ).
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>>
Ok. I am happy with this then.
(Just personally grumpy having to write
cxxRecordDecl(has(cxxConstructorDecl(..))) in the future ;-) ).
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Manue
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM Aaron Ballman
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM Aaron Ballman
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Jasper
> wrote:
> >> > By this point, I see that change might be
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Jasper wrote:
>> > By this point, I see that change might be profitable overall. However,
>> > lets
>> > completely map this out. Chan
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM Aaron Ballman
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Jasper wrote:
> > By this point, I see that change might be profitable overall. However,
> lets
> > completely map this out. Changing just cxxRecordDecl() can actually
> increase
> > confusion in othe
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Jasper wrote:
> By this point, I see that change might be profitable overall. However, lets
> completely map this out. Changing just cxxRecordDecl() can actually increase
> confusion in other areas. Right now, not a single AST matcher has the cxx
> prefix (a
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:45 AM Daniel Jasper wrote:
> By this point, I see that change might be profitable overall. However,
> lets completely map this out. Changing just cxxRecordDecl() can actually
> increase confusion in other areas. Right now, not a single AST matcher has
> the cxx prefix (
By this point, I see that change might be profitable overall. However, lets
completely map this out. Changing just cxxRecordDecl() can actually
increase confusion in other areas. Right now, not a single AST matcher has
the cxx prefix (although a total of 28 stand for the corresponding CXX..
AST nod
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:30 AM Daniel Jasper wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM Daniel Jasper
>>> wrote:
So, back in the day when we implemented the match
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:30 AM Daniel Jasper wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM Daniel Jasper
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, back in the day when we implemented the matchers, we decided on
>>> actually wanting to remove all the CXX... AS
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM Daniel Jasper wrote:
>
>> So, back in the day when we implemented the matchers, we decided on
>> actually wanting to remove all the CXX... AST nodes (there are more of
>> them).
>>
>
> Note that Richard has
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM Daniel Jasper wrote:
> So, back in the day when we implemented the matchers, we decided on
> actually wanting to remove all the CXX... AST nodes (there are more of
> them).
>
Note that Richard has paddled back on this and now says the CXX... AST
nodes are the rig
So, back in the day when we implemented the matchers, we decided on
actually wanting to remove all the CXX... AST nodes (there are more of
them). I don't know how this would work as recordDecl already exists. But
I'd be somewhat hesitant to introduce a cxxRecordDecl matcher if there is
still a chan
This is the full patch that corrects all the compile errors MSVC was
generating. If we have any platform-specific checkers, they may have
been missed. But this should give an idea of the scope of the changes
we're asking folks to make.
~Aaron
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:40 AM Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, 9:25 PM Aaron Ballman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Manuel
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:40 AM Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, 9:25 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Manuel Klimek
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM A
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, 9:25 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM Aaron Ballman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Rich
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, 9:25 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM Aaron Ballman
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Richard Smith
> >> wrote:
> >> > I don't think CXXRecordDecl is an anachro
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Richard Smith
>> wrote:
>> > I don't think CXXRecordDecl is an anachronism, so much as an
>> > implementation
>> > detail; it makes sense to
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM Aaron Ballman
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
> > I don't think CXXRecordDecl is an anachronism, so much as an
> implementation
> > detail; it makes sense to use a smaller class when in C mode, as we don't
> > need most of the fea
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> I don't think CXXRecordDecl is an anachronism, so much as an implementation
> detail; it makes sense to use a smaller class when in C mode, as we don't
> need most of the features and complexity that CXXRecordDecl brings with it.
> But... as
I don't think CXXRecordDecl is an anachronism, so much as an implementation
detail; it makes sense to use a smaller class when in C mode, as we don't
need most of the features and complexity that CXXRecordDecl brings with it.
But... as a user of clang matchers, I don't think I'd want to care about
Richard! We need an informed opinion :D
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM Aaron Ballman
wrote:
> Ping?
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:23 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Manuel Klimek
> wrote:
> >> > On Tu
Ping?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:23 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:23 PM Aaron Ballman
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Manuel Klimek
>
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:23 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:23 PM Aaron Ballman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Manuel Klimek
> wrote:
> >> > Yea, we had that discussion a few times, and I can never
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:23 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> > Yea, we had that discussion a few times, and I can never remember why we
>> > ended up in the state we're in.
>> > We definit
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:23 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > Yea, we had that discussion a few times, and I can never remember why we
> > ended up in the state we're in.
> > We definitely had a time where we switched to just using the exact same
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Yea, we had that discussion a few times, and I can never remember why we
> ended up in the state we're in.
> We definitely had a time where we switched to just using the exact same name
> as the node's class name for the matchers.
> I *think*
Yea, we had that discussion a few times, and I can never remember why we
ended up in the state we're in.
We definitely had a time where we switched to just using the exact same
name as the node's class name for the matchers.
I *think* we didn't do it for cxxRecordDecl, because Richard said that's a
37 matches
Mail list logo
