================
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+//===---------- SubobjectVisitor.h - Subobject Visitor ----------*- C++ 
-*-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM 
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+//
+//  This file defines the SubobjectVisitor interface, which recursively
+//  traverses subobjects within a type.
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_AST_SUBOBJECTVISITOR_H
+#define LLVM_CLANG_AST_SUBOBJECTVISITOR_H
+
+#include "clang/AST/Type.h"
+
+namespace clang {
+
+#define DISPATCH(CLASS)                                                        
\
+  return static_cast<Derived *>(this)->visit##CLASS(                           
\
+      static_cast<const CLASS *>(T))
+
+template <template <typename> class Ptr, typename Derived>
+class SubobjectVisitorBase {
+  ASTContext &Ctx;
+  template <typename Class> using ptr_t = typename Ptr<Class>::type;
+  template <typename Class>
+  using non_ptr_t = typename std::remove_pointer<ptr_t<Class>>::type;
+
+public:
+  SubobjectVisitorBase(ASTContext &Ctx) : Ctx(Ctx) {}
+
+  /// Return a reference to the derived class.
+  Derived &getDerived() { return *static_cast<Derived *>(this); }
+
+  void visit(QualType QT) {
+    // If the type is an array, visit its element type. Separate traversal of
+    // arrays is not needed because the array will be encountered as a
+    // FieldDecl.
+
+    if (QT->isArrayType()) {
+      QualType ElTy =
+          cast<ConstantArrayType>(Ctx.getAsArrayType(QT))->getElementType();
+      visit(ElTy);
+      return;
+    }
+
+    if (ptr_t<RecordDecl> RD = QT->getAsRecordDecl()) {
+      traverseRecord(RD);
+      return;
+    }
+
+    visitGenericType(QT.getCanonicalType().getTypePtr());
----------------
tahonermann wrote:

I don't think we should visit the type (or types at all; see other comments) 
for the initial call to start visitation since that type is presumed to 
correlate with a complete object, not a subobject. If we do find such 
visitation to be valuable or necessary, then we should consider a different 
name for the visitor class since it isn't really visiting subobjects (fields 
and base classes).

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/192957
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to