================
@@ -437,12 +439,67 @@ class StmtComparer {
};
} // namespace
+static bool IsStructurallyEquivalent(StructuralEquivalenceContext &Context,
+ const UnaryOperator *E1,
+ const CXXOperatorCallExpr *E2) {
+ return UnaryOperator::getOverloadedOperator(E1->getOpcode()) ==
+ E2->getOperator() &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getSubExpr(), E2->getArg(0));
+}
+
+static bool IsStructurallyEquivalent(StructuralEquivalenceContext &Context,
+ const CXXOperatorCallExpr *E1,
+ const UnaryOperator *E2) {
+ return E1->getOperator() ==
+ UnaryOperator::getOverloadedOperator(E2->getOpcode()) &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getArg(0), E2->getSubExpr());
+}
+
+static bool IsStructurallyEquivalent(StructuralEquivalenceContext &Context,
+ const BinaryOperator *E1,
+ const CXXOperatorCallExpr *E2) {
+ return BinaryOperator::getOverloadedOperator(E1->getOpcode()) ==
+ E2->getOperator() &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getLHS(), E2->getArg(0)) &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getRHS(), E2->getArg(1));
+}
+
+static bool IsStructurallyEquivalent(StructuralEquivalenceContext &Context,
+ const CXXOperatorCallExpr *E1,
+ const BinaryOperator *E2) {
+ return E1->getOperator() ==
+ BinaryOperator::getOverloadedOperator(E2->getOpcode()) &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getArg(0), E2->getLHS()) &&
+ IsStructurallyEquivalent(Context, E1->getArg(1), E2->getRHS());
+}
+
/// Determine structural equivalence of two statements.
static bool IsStructurallyEquivalent(StructuralEquivalenceContext &Context,
const Stmt *S1, const Stmt *S2) {
if (!S1 || !S2)
return S1 == S2;
+ // Check for statements with similar syntax but different AST.
+ // The unary and binary operators (like '+', '&') can be parsed as
+ // CXXOperatorCall too (and UnaryOperator or BinaryOperator).
+ // This depends on arguments with unresolved type and on the name lookup.
----------------
DonatNagyE wrote:
Could you perhaps elaborate this sentence a bit? Do I understand it correctly
that e.g. in `CXXOperatorCallExprVsUnaryBinaryOperator` the presence of `struct
Bar` in the second TU ensured that all the operators are parsed as
`CXXOperatorCall`s, while in the first TU they are parsed as unary/binary
operator expressions?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72242
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
