aaron.ballman added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D8149#329791, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> Is there any reason we can't proceed with the patch as-is and then see if it
> can be refactored into an overload of `hasType`?
The patch currently includes hasUnderlyingType() which we don't want because
hasType() is the logically correct place to expose that functionality (it would
be providing duplicate functionality with no benefit to expose
hasUnderlyingType()). If you removed hasUnderlyingType() and split the
hasType() changes into its own patch, we can easily proceed with the function
prototype changes (AFAICT, there's only one outstanding test to add for that
and it otherwise looks fine to me).
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTest.cpp:1567
@@ -1566,1 +1566,3 @@
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matches("void f(...);", functionDecl(parameterCountIs(0))));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matches("void f(int, ...);", functionDecl(parameterCountIs(1))));
}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> What should be the outcome of this test (matches or not matches)?
> ```
> matchesC("void f();", functionDecl(parameterCountIs(0)));
> ```
> (Note, it's using C where this is variadic.) My guess is that it should
> match, but I'd like to make sure (and have a test for it).
I still don't see a `matchesC()` test case for
`functionDecl(parameterCountIs()` on a varargs function, so I don't believe
this comment is Done yet. (I do see one for getting to it through
functionProtoType()).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8149
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
