klimek added a comment. In D80961#2076242 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961#2076242>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D80961#2073049 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961#2073049>, @klimek wrote: > > > Without jumping into the discussion whether it should be the default, I > > think we should be able to control template instantiation visitation > > separately from other implicit nodes. > > Having to put AsIs on a matcher every time you need to match template > > instantiations is a rather big change (suddenly you have to change all the > > matchers you've written so far). > > > I think that's the intended meaning of `AsIs` though. Template instantiations > are not source code the user wrote, they're source code the compiler stamped > out from code the user wrote. I hope `IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource` isn't a > misnomer. > > > I love the idea of being able to control visitation of template > > instantiation. > > I am somewhat torn on whether it should be the default, and would like to > > see more data. > > I feel more strongly about needing AsIs when I want to match template > > instantiations. > > FWIW, my experience in clang-tidy has been that template instantiations are > ignored far more often than they're desired. In fact, instantiations tend to > be a source of bugs for us because they're easy to forget about when writing > matchers without keeping templates in mind. The times when template > instantiations become important to *not* ignore within the checks is when the > check is specific to template behavior, but that's a minority of the public > checks thus far. So I assume the idea is that this will work & be what we'll want people to write? traverse(AsIs, decl(traverse(IgnoreImplicit, hasFoo))) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
