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.
No, it could be a CallExpr:
struct A { };
A operator+(A, A);
void f(A x, A y) { operator+(x, y); }
> 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.
They're all calls; the subclasses are used to describe the different syntax
used in the language to form such a call.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
