On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Manuel Klimek <kli...@google.com> wrote:
> + // We could use Node.decl_begin() - Node.decl_end(), but that relies on
> + // decl_iterator just being a Decl**.
> + unsigned DeclCount = 0;
> + for (DeclStmt::const_decl_iterator I = Node.decl_begin(),
> + E = Node.decl_end(); I != E; ++I)
> + ++DeclCount;
>
> (after chatting with Chandler about this on irc):
> I'd use Node.decl_end() - Node.decl_begin(). If it ever becomes a
> non-const-time operation, the iterator will not implement the
> interface and break compilation, so we'll notice.
But do we need to notice? If the original algorithm written here is
linear it seems like constant time size is not a requirement.
If that's the case, then std::distance just DTRT - constant time for
random access iterators, linear for others. (alternatively, provide
Node::decl_size that does the same thing - but I can understand the
concern of providing a (possibly in the future) non-constant-time
size, though at that point you could remove size & go back & examine
each client to see which ones care about that)
>
> Regardless of that, I think your comment is wrong in 2 ways: first,
> there's a typo :) Second, that the iterator happens to come down do
> being a pointer has nothing to do with its contract. It either
> provides random access or not.
>
> +/// \brief Matches expressions that match InnerMatcher after implicit casts
> are
> +/// stripped off.
> +AST_MATCHER_P(Expr, ignoreImplicitCasts,
> + internal::Matcher<Expr>, InnerMatcher) {
> + return InnerMatcher.matches(*Node.IgnoreImpCasts(), Finder, Builder);
> +}
>
> I think we should implement the equivalent based on ignoreParenImpCast
> first, as that's what I've seen us needing much more often (we can
> implement this one, too, of course ;)
>
> Cheers,
> /Manuel
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sam Panzer <pan...@google.com> wrote:
>> <div>Attached are three more small matcher patches. One fixes another
>> rename typo (AnyOf --> anyOf) that was similar to the previous
>> allOf patch. The second patch adds more inspection for
>> declarationStatement matchers, making it easier to look at single
>> declarations directly. The third patch adds expression matchers which
>> call IgnoreXXXCasts() before applying their
>> sub-matchers.</div><div><br></div>For future reference, should I
>> continue splitting up these patches for
>> review?<div><br></div><div>-Sam</div>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
