On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:03 PM Richard Smith via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rsmith > Date: Tue Feb 9 14:59:05 2016 > New Revision: 260277 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260277&view=rev > Log: > Simplify and rename ASTMatchFinder's getCXXRecordDecl to make it more > obvious > what it's actually trying to do. > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp?rev=260277&r1=260276&r2=260277&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp Tue Feb 9 14:59:05 2016 > @@ -744,46 +744,25 @@ private: > MemoizationMap ResultCache; > }; > > -static CXXRecordDecl *getAsCXXRecordDecl(const Type *TypeNode) { > - // Type::getAs<...>() drills through typedefs. > - if (TypeNode->getAs<DependentNameType>() != nullptr || > - TypeNode->getAs<DependentTemplateSpecializationType>() != nullptr || > - TypeNode->getAs<TemplateTypeParmType>() != nullptr) > - // Dependent names and template TypeNode parameters will be matched > when > - // the template is instantiated. > - return nullptr; > - TemplateSpecializationType const *TemplateType = > - TypeNode->getAs<TemplateSpecializationType>(); > - if (!TemplateType) { > - return TypeNode->getAsCXXRecordDecl(); > - } > - if (TemplateType->getTemplateName().isDependent()) > - // Dependent template specializations will be matched when the > - // template is instantiated. > - return nullptr; > - > - // For template specialization types which are specializing a template > - // declaration which is an explicit or partial specialization of another > - // template declaration, getAsCXXRecordDecl() returns the corresponding > - // ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl. > - // > - // For template specialization types which are specializing a template > - // declaration which is neither an explicit nor partial specialization > of > - // another template declaration, getAsCXXRecordDecl() returns NULL and > - // we get the CXXRecordDecl of the templated declaration. > - CXXRecordDecl *SpecializationDecl = TemplateType->getAsCXXRecordDecl(); > - if (SpecializationDecl) { > - return SpecializationDecl; > - } > - NamedDecl *Templated = > - > TemplateType->getTemplateName().getAsTemplateDecl()->getTemplatedDecl(); > - if (CXXRecordDecl *TemplatedRecord = > dyn_cast<CXXRecordDecl>(Templated)) { > - return TemplatedRecord; > - } > - // Now it can still be that we have an alias template. > - TypeAliasDecl *AliasDecl = dyn_cast<TypeAliasDecl>(Templated); > - assert(AliasDecl); > - return getAsCXXRecordDecl(AliasDecl->getUnderlyingType().getTypePtr()); > +static CXXRecordDecl * > +getAsCXXRecordDeclOrPrimaryTemplate(const Type *TypeNode) { > + if (auto *RD = TypeNode->getAsCXXRecordDecl()) > + return RD; > + > + // Find the innermost TemplateSpecializationType that isn't an alias > template. > + auto *TemplateType = TypeNode->getAs<TemplateSpecializationType>(); > + while (TemplateType && TemplateType->isTypeAlias()) > + TemplateType = > + > TemplateType->getAliasedType()->getAs<TemplateSpecializationType>(); > + > + // If this is the name of a (dependent) template specialization, use the > + // definition of the template, even though it might be specialized > later. > + if (TemplateType) > + if (auto *ClassTemplate = dyn_cast_or_null<ClassTemplateDecl>( > + TemplateType->getTemplateName().getAsTemplateDecl())) > + return ClassTemplate->getTemplatedDecl(); > + > + return nullptr; > } > > // Returns true if the given class is directly or indirectly derived > @@ -800,7 +779,10 @@ bool MatchASTVisitor::classIsDerivedFrom > if (typeHasMatchingAlias(TypeNode, Base, Builder)) > return true; > > - CXXRecordDecl *ClassDecl = getAsCXXRecordDecl(TypeNode); > + // FIXME: Going to the primary template here isn't really correct, but > + // unfortunately we accept a Decl matcher for the base class not a > Type > + // matcher, so it's the best thing we can do with our current Why not? Specifically, it seems to match what the user wants in most cases. Now, I'm all for also exposing a more complex interface to the user, where they can / have to control exactly where to dive into the primary templates, but experience shows that this is really hard for anybody who's not a C++ expert to understand, and the current behavior here matches what people expect when they want to match classes in the inheritance hierarchy. > interface. > + CXXRecordDecl *ClassDecl = > getAsCXXRecordDeclOrPrimaryTemplate(TypeNode); > if (!ClassDecl) > continue; > if (ClassDecl == Declaration) { > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
