piscisaureus added a comment. In D66850#1648776 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66850#1648776>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> LGTM, but missing a test case. > > In D66850#1648557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66850#1648557>, @sidorovd wrote: > > > LGTM. I'm not an expert in JSON, but may be it makes sense to move the > > change a line earlier before creation of pointer representation? > > > I would prefer it remains where it is -- having the `0x0` in the output for a > null pointer is a good thing because it conveys more information than a > totally empty `Type` object. We're accidentally inconsistent about this > currently (Decl prints 0x0 but Stmt gives an empty object). I don't disagree, but I would argue that "0x0" is a rather poor choice, since now the consumer has to treat the "id" field as an opaque value, **except** when it's "0x0". A better choice would be to use JavaScript `null` to represent null pointers. That said, I've simply followed the pattern established in `visit(Decl*)` here; switching to `null` would warrant a separate patch IMO. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66850/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66850 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
