djtodoro added a comment. >> @lebedev.ri I agree, thank you! I needed to be more precise in my previous >> reply, sorry for that. I thought it will be (somehow) overhead if I change >> existing, very basic, matchers. > > I indeed don't think the existing matchers should be changed to ignore these > , ops (or implicit casts, like some issue reports propose). > >> I already implemented a static function that skips comma operands, and >> extended this to support member calls, functions, etc. >> But, implementing it as a new matcher sounds like better idea.
> Yes. I think this matcher will be very baseline, and can just be added where > needed > (with appropriate test coverage, of course), without matcher duplication like > in this current diff. @lebedev.ri I agree, we are on the same page! Thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58894/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58894 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
