aaron.ballman added a comment. In D56444#1351096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351096>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D56444#1351056 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351056>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > Given that, I kind of think we should have functionDecl() match only > > functions, and give users some other way to match the semantic declarations > > in a consistent manner. Alternatively, we could decide semantics are what > > we want to match (because it's what the AST encodes) and instead we give > > users a way to request to only match syntax. > > > I believe matching the implied semantic nodes is how closer to how matchers > behave in general (corresponding to the fact that the ASTMatcher > RecursiveASTVisitor sets `shouldVisitImplicitCode` to true). e.g. I agree that we more closely match on semantics than we do on syntax and I think that's the correct default (as it will match the nodes in the AST that the user can see through dumping). Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
