At 02:50 PM 11/1/2010, John McCall wrote: >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.
Yes, but CXXMemberCallExpr's are visited separately from CXXOperatorCallExpr and CallExpr which are visited together. - jim _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
