================
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)
\
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> 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?
What NodeType?
Comment extended.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2462
@@ +2461,3 @@
+/// Given
+/// struct A {};
+/// A a;
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Missing the \code tags...
Added. Here and below.
================
Comment at: lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:560
@@ +559,3 @@
+ // RecursiveASTVisitor by itself would only visit the TypeLocs, not the
+ // contained types.
+ match(TypeLocNode);
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> The question is: why do we want to traverse the Types here?
We do not traverse the Types. We only match them. So basically, whenever you
find a TypeLoc hierarchy in the AST, there is a corresponding Type hierarchy.
The RecursiveASTVisitor does not visit both, as the TypeLoc is sort of a
superset of the Type. However, when matching, we also want to match the
contained types, if we happen to have a type-matcher, no?
So, what we basically do is traverse the hierarchy once and try to match both
Types and TypeLocs.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D47
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
