sammccall added a comment. In D56444#1351130 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351130>, @steveire wrote:
> In D56444#1351125 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351125>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > if the location isn't somewhere in user code, then don't consider the node > > or its children for traversal. However, that may be insufficient and > > equally as mysterious behavior. > > > That is exactly what I've implemented. I skip invisible nodes in matching and > dumping: http://ec2-18-191-7-3.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/EuYjAn So what happens when someone asks about the parent of an invisible node? e.g. `match(hasParent(decl().bind("parent")), X, Ctx)` where X is the `operator()` function of a lambda class. (This is basically the case in the bug that this patch fixes) 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
