On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote: > At 02:06 PM 11/1/2010, Douglas Gregor wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please review and commit this patch for PR7287. Thanks. >> >> This isn't quite the right fix, because it won't handle, e.g., >> direct calls to an operator >> >> operator+(x, y) >> >> >> Instead, we should probably use FD->getIdentifier() and bail out >> early if it returns NULL. >> >> - Doug > > Well, those calls would actually be MemberCallExpr's, so it wouldn't > occur in VisitCallExpr. The problem is really just an artifact of > CXXOperatorCalls being grouped together with Calls. Eventually, they > will probably be separated and this check can go away.
Both CXXOperatorCallExpr and CXXMemberCallExpr are subclasses of CallExpr. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
