bwendling wrote: > I'd like to see a few tests involving multiple arrows in the same expression. > (If my understanding is correct, you want to cut the recursion when you see > an arrow member.)
Correct. I'll add the code and some testcases. > Looking at the code again, I guess FindCountedByField doesn't explicitly > compute the base expression, so maybe that doesn't work as-is. But tying the > recursion over the expression to the recursion over the record would be a > good way to ensure the base expression is actually the expression you want. > The way the code is currently written seems to strongly assume that if > there's a relevant counted_by field, it's usable no matter how the expression > is actually structured. There are Sema checks to ensure that `counted_by` is applied only to flexible array members. I am crossing my fingers here that the `Base` expression is well behaved. But I agree that tying the two will make for a stronger check here. Let me work on that. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
