aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersInternal.h:1952
+std::shared_ptr<llvm::Regex> createAndVerifyRegex(StringRef Regex,
+ llvm::Regex::RegexFlags
Flags,
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Is there a reason this needs to be a shared pointer as opposed to a unique
> > pointer that gets moved into the class owning it?
> It has to be shared ownership for the polymorphic matchers to enable reuse of
> `PolymorphicMatcherWithParam1`. When a matcher or type `T` is required from
> a `PolymorphicMatcherWithParam1` it creates a copy of the Param. As you can't
> copy from a `unique_ptr`, a `shared_ptr` makes sense.
Drat, but reasonable, thanks for the explanation.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/Dynamic/Marshallers.cpp:126
+ Flag |= llvm::Regex::IgnoreCase;
+ else if (OrFlag == "NewLine")
+ Flag |= llvm::Regex::Newline;
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This makes me think we want to do a case insensitive comparison rather than
> > an exact case match. Personally, I would always write `NewLine` as the
> > string literal, but I could easily see someone writing `Newline` to match
> > the spelling of the RegEx flag and being surprised it doesn't work. WDYT?
> That could work, or I implement the `ArgTypeTraits::getBestGuess` to handle
> small issues like that. Would be a little trickier than the other cases as It
> would need to support `|`. WDYT?
Hmm, I don't have a firm opinion but am slightly leaning towards implementing
`getBestGuess` and using the more strict spellings based purely on personal
preference.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/Dynamic/Marshallers.h:745
+ bool isVariadic() const override { return true; }
+ unsigned getNumArgs() const override { return 0; }
+
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems suspicious that `getNumArgs()`
> > returns 0 but `getArgKinds()` suggests at least one argument. Is that
> > intentional?
> It was my understanding that when `isVariadic()` returns true, `getNumArgs()`
> is not used. I could change it to return 1, but that wouldn't be any more
> correct than it is now, nor would it have any functional change.
Ah, so the real issue is that `getNumArgs()` is pure virtual, which forces us
to ask these sort of silly questions. Good to know, I'm fine with `0`, I was
just surprised.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/Dynamic/ParserTest.cpp:379
+ ParseMatcherWithError(
+ R"query(namedDecl(matchesName("[ABC]*", "IgnoreCase |
Basicregex")))query"));
}
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Should we have a failure for something like `IgnoreCase | NoFlags` ?
> I'm against that, its perfectly legal in non dynamic matchers land to write
> `matchesName("[ABC]*", IgnoreCase | NoFlags)` Even if it is a little
> redundant.
Okay, fine by me. I only brought it up because it seems like a very confused
user and we have the opportunity to diagnose (due to the dynamic nature here as
opposed to the static nature of C++ using bitwise OR directly).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82706/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82706
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
