njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:789
+ else
+ OS << "<anonymous> ";
+ D->getSourceRange().print(OS,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Should this be `"<anonymous> : "` instead?
Good catch
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:796
+ MV.ActiveASTContext->getSourceManager());
+ } else if (const auto *T = Item.second.get<Type>()) {
+ OS << T->getTypeClassName() << "Type : ";
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do we also need a match for `TypeLoc` matchers, or does the `else` cover that
> sufficiently well?
>
> (Actually, should we handle all of the various matchers at:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h#L141
> rather than leaving it to an `else`? Then the `else` can become an
> unreachable so we know to update this interface?)
The else should be sufficient for most general cases, the only reason some are
special cased is to improve the output, but I don't want there to be a burden
to update this interface if new nodes are added.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120185/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120185
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
