ztamas added a comment. In D76990#1948286 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990#1948286>, @njames93 wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure this is where the fix needs to be for this. The test > case code is whacky as hell, but from what I can see clang should always emit > a `BinaryOperator` for dependent type operators. No idea why it is spewing > out a `CXXOperatorCallExpr` instead. Would need someone with more knowledge > on Sema to confirm(or deny) this though. I agree, it seems suspicious that a BinaryOperator matcher does not work in this case. However, I'm working on this level of the code, I'm looking at the matchers like an API, what I'm just using in the clang-tidy code, without changing them. So that's why I added this workaround. I don't know how much time it would take to fix this issue in the matcher code or whether it will be fixed in the near future or not, but until then I think it useful to have this workaround in the caller code, so this clang-tidy check works better. I added a TODO comment, so it's more visible that we have an issue here, so it's more probable somebody will fix that working with the matchers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
