sammccall added a comment. In D89743#2409001 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89743#2409001>, @sammccall wrote:
> We didn't talk about overloading isImplicit to apply to attrs too, but it > doesn't seem like that was controversial (and it does help with the tests). I spoke too soon about this... This prevents `hasAncestor(isImplicit())` from compiling, because `hasAncestor` needs to deduce the node type from its argument to call `ASTMatchFinder::matchesAncestorOf<T>()`. This occurs in a few places in tree and many places in our private codebase... The workaround is `hasAncestor(decl(isImplicit()))` which is reasonable, except that "is contained in *any* implicit node" is probably actually the intent. Well, at least it's not a regression. In addition, while digging into this, I realized Attrs are not traversed in the parent map, and not supported by the parent/child/ancestor/descendant traversals. So I'm fixing that... and adding some tests. I'll need to send this for another round, even without the name matcher. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89743/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89743 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
