nridge marked 2 inline comments as done.
nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1843
+ if (const auto *TC = D->getTypeConstraint()) {
+ TRY_TO(TraverseStmt(TC->getImmediatelyDeclaredConstraint()));
TRY_TO(TraverseConceptReference(*TC));
----------------
hokein wrote:
> Looks like we may visit some nodes in `ConceptReference` twice:
> - getImmediatelyDeclaredConstraint returns a `ConceptSpecializationExpr`
> (most cases?) which is a subclass of `ConceptReference`;
> - `TraverseStmt(ConceptSpecializationExpr*)` will dispatch to
> `TraverseConceptSpecializationExpr` which invokes `TraverseConceptReference`
> (see Line 2719);
>
>
> It is sad that we don't have enough test coverage, could you write some tests
> in `clang/unittests/Tooling/RecursiveASTVisitorTests/`?
It is true that there will be two calls to `TraverseConceptReference()`.
However, they are called on two different `ConceptReference` objects:
* the call in `TraverseConceptSpecializationExpr` will visit the base
subobject of the `ConceptSpecializationExpr` (which inherits from
`ConceptReference`)
* the call in `TraverseTemplateTypeParmDecl` will visit the base subobject of
the `TypeConstraint` (which also inherits from `ConceptReference`).
So, I think this is fine -- there are two distinct `ConceptReference` objects
in the AST, and with this patch we visit both of them.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84136/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84136
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
