aaron.ballman added a comment. In D135557#3871716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557#3871716>, @dblaikie wrote:
> (I'm still sort of curious how the AST matchers deal with all this - I guess > they must have Sema available, because I'd assume they make all sorts of > queries like "is this constructible from that" - since they're often trying > to generate new code and want to know what constructs will be valid, which is > different from the indexing use case, admittedly) Nope, AST matchers don't have Sema available, so they don't have a way to query "is this constructible from that". You've got the AST itself (and the `ASTContext`) and not a whole lot else beyond that. > Maybe the answer is the C API isn't for this sort of thing/it's too nuanced > to expose there? > > But if you reckon the inconsistency isn't so bad, I won't be up in arms if > you decide to go with having the indexing C API instantiate all the implicit > special members all the time. I can see the value/it's only restricted to the > indexing API. Does seem a bit unfortunate in tetrms of consistency. Yeah, I think you convinced me that the consistency issue is something we should be wary of. I don't think we want to get into a situation where C index/AST matching is fundamentally a different AST than the rest of the compiler. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
