Apart from the nits, I think this is fine to go in.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:112
@@ -112,1 +111,3 @@
typedef internal::Matcher<Stmt> StatementMatcher;
+typedef internal::Matcher<QualType> TypeMatcher;
+typedef internal::Matcher<TypeLoc> TypeLocMatcher;
----------------
Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > Do we want to keep that backwards compatible, or do we want to rename this
> > to QualTypeMatcher?
> I don't see a reason to change this now, but I am happy to, if you think it
> is better.
Nah, fine in a follow-up patch.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2462
@@ +2461,3 @@
+/// Given
+/// struct A {};
+/// A a;
----------------
Missing the \code tags...
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersInternal.h:1095
@@ +1094,3 @@
+ NestedNameSpecifierLoc NextNode = Node.getPrefix();
+ if (!NextNode)
+ return false;
----------------
Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > I think we should be consistent with == NULL vs. implicit in this file.
> I don't think this comment makes sense. NextNode is not a pointer so I don't
> think we should be comparing it against NULL.
Heh, right, sorry :)
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersMacros.h:233
@@ -227,8 +232,3 @@
///
-/// The traversal is done using the given \c FunctionName.
-#define LOC_TRAVERSE_MATCHER(
\
- MatcherName, NodeType, FunctionName)
\
- inline internal::Matcher<NodeType> hasPrefix(
\
- const internal::Matcher<NodeType> &InnerMatcher) {
\
- return internal::makeMatcher(new internal::TraverseMatcher<NodeType>(
\
- InnerMatcher, &NodeType::getPrefix));
\
+/// The traversal is done using \c FunctionName.
+#define AST_TYPE_TRAVERSE_MATCHER(MatcherName, FunctionName)
\
----------------
Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > Perhaps: The traversal is done using \c NodeTypel::FunctionName.?
> Like this?
Are you saying NodeType is not the one that FunctionName is called on?
================
Comment at: lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:560
@@ +559,3 @@
+ // RecursiveASTVisitor by itself would only visit the TypeLocs, not the
+ // contained types.
+ match(TypeLocNode);
----------------
The question is: why do we want to traverse the Types here?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D47
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
