ymandel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:558
+ int m;
+ int f(X x) { return m; }
+ };
----------------
steveire wrote:
> Are we missing a matcher that would reach the type of X in this case?
> `hasImplicitObjectExpression`, or something equivalent?
Good question. The reason we're not reaching `X` in this case is that we're
distinguishing between `T` and `T*` (like `thisPointerType` does). That's
separate from the difference between `on` and `onImplicitObjectArgument`. So,
I think we'll at least want a matcher that elides this difference, e.g.
`hasObjectType`.
I'm less inclined to add matchers that distinguish the written from the coerced
member expression (one variant each for the expression and type matchers) given
that I think this issue comes up far less for member expressions that don't
involve calls. I'm just afraid that the proliferation of matchers might confuse
beginners.
Note that I extended the test to include the hasPointerType() case (especially
since it's now mentioned in the comments).
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56850/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56850
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
