aaron.ballman added a comment. Can you add a test that checks that a lambda declared within another lambda also traverses as expected?
In D56444#1351145 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351145>, @sammccall wrote: > In D56444#1351128 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351128>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > In D56444#1351127 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1351127>, @steveire > > wrote: > > > > > I suggest not trying to make any such drastic changes for 8.0, try to fix > > > the bug in a minimal way if possible, and have a more considered approach > > > to the future of AST Matchers for after the release. > > > > > > +1 > > > Can you elaborate? I can elaborate my +1. :-) I don't think we should try to do anything remotely close to what I was talking about with semantic vs syntactic traversals in 8.0, but only consider it for 9.0. Instead, I prefer this minimal fix that addresses the regression with parent maps. We can revisit the question about adding a new traversal model later. 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
