================
@@ -1336,6 +1336,44 @@ class MatchASTVisitor : public
RecursiveASTVisitor<MatchASTVisitor>,
return false;
}
+ template <typename T> static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const T &Node) {
+ return Node.getBeginLoc();
+ }
+
+ static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const QualType &Node) { return {}; }
+
+ static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const NestedNameSpecifier &Node) {
+ return {};
+ }
+
+ static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const CXXCtorInitializer &Node) {
+ return Node.getSourceLocation();
+ }
+
+ static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const TemplateArgumentLoc &Node) {
+ return Node.getLocation();
+ }
+
+ static SourceLocation getNodeLocation(const Attr &Node) {
+ return Node.getLocation();
+ }
+
+ bool isInSystemHeader(const SourceLocation &Loc) {
+ const SourceManager &SM = getASTContext().getSourceManager();
+ return SM.isInSystemHeader(Loc);
+ }
+
+ template <typename T> bool shouldSkipNode(const T &Node) {
+ if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<T>)
+ return (Node == nullptr) || shouldSkipNode(*Node);
+ else {
----------------
carlosgalvezp wrote:
I had a similar structure in one of the first commits, but @vbvictor suggested
to use `if constexpr` instead. I do tend to agree that recursion is probably
slightly harder to understand than specializations, but I have no strong
opinions here either.
Should I keep one specialization for pointers and one for references then?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/151035
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
