gribozavr2 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:519
+
+/// Parameter list for a function type.
+/// E.g.:
----------------
... and a trailing return type, if the function has one.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:522
+/// `(volatile int a)` in `int foo(volatile int a);`
+/// `(int&& a)` in `int foo(int&& a);`
+/// `() -> int` in `auto foo() -> int;`
----------------
I meant:
`int foo() volatile;`
`int foo() &&;`
Of course parameters can be cv and ref-qualified, but that's not the
interesting part here. What's interesting is function qualifiers.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:526
+/// `() noexcept` in `int foo() noexcept;`
+/// `() throw()` in `int foo() throw();`
+///
----------------
Would you mind adding these examples to tests?
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:544
+/// E.g. `X::*` in `int X::* a = 0;`
+class MemberPointer final : public Tree {
+public:
----------------
Seems a bit weird that we have a separate node for member pointers, array
subscripts, but not for regular pointers.
I think the rationale behind it is that since we are not building a tree
structure out of declarators, the only token under a regular pointer declarator
would be a star, so creating that node would not be very helpful.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:53
+namespace {
+/// Get start location of the Decl from the TypeLoc.
+/// E.g.:
----------------
s/of the Decl/of the declarator/
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:61
+///
+/// (!) TypeLocs are stored inside out (in the example above `*volatile` is
+/// the TypeLoc returned by `Decl.getTypeSourceInfo()`, and `*const` is
----------------
I don't think LLVM does `(!)` type of ASCII art.
"""
It is non-trivial to get the start location because TypeLocs are stored inside
out. In the example above, ...
"""
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:106
+ if (T.getTypePtr()->hasTrailingReturn())
+ return SourceLocation(); // avoid recursing into the suffix of
declarator.
+ return VisitTypeLoc(T);
----------------
I suspect there might be an issue here with nested function declarators because
we will avoid recursing not only into the suffix (which I think means the
trailing return type), but also into parameters.
If it was not necessary to recurse into parameters, why would the return
statement below do that?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTest.cpp:1282
+struct X {};
+int X::* a;
+ )cpp",
----------------
Please also add tests with qualifiers.
`const int X::* b;`
`const int X::* const c;`
Also for member functions:
`int (X::*d)(int param);`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76220/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76220
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
