dgoldman added a comment. In D119363#3324024 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119363#3324024>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D119363#3323867 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119363#3323867>, @dgoldman > wrote: > >> In D119363#3323778 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119363#3323778>, @sammccall >> wrote: >> >>> I'm a bit concerned about the parent map vs ASTMatchFinder's view being out >>> of sync: we'll have a ProtocolLoc node that has a parent but the parent >>> doesn't have the child. >>> >>> I'm not sure this breaks anything immediately, but I think we should also >>> make these nodes visible to matchers, even if there's no specific matcher >>> yet. >> >> Hmm I can try to do it - what do I need to modify to make them visible to >> matchers? > > I don't remember specifically, I think ASTMatchFinderImpl has a > RecursiveASTVisitor that you need to extend? I'm not sure actually how you > would observe these nodes cleanly without matchers (hacks like > `has(hasParent())` maybe?) So maybe it's best to ignore it in this patch and > add basic matchers in a next one It looks like ASTMatchFinder.cpp has a `MatchASTVisitor` which I think is what you meant, but yeah I think it's probably best to do in a follow up unless you think it'll break something here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119363/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119363 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
