aaron.ballman added inline comments.

Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3005
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER(VarDecl, isStaticDataMember) {
+  return Node.isStaticDataMember();
hokein wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > How does this differ from the existing matcher `hasStaticStorageDuration()` 
> > over a `fieldDecl()`?
> `fieldDecl` document says that fieldDecl is "an instance of this class is 
> created by Sema::ActOnField to
> represent a member of a struct/union/class.". So for static class members, 
> they should not belong to `fieldDecl` as they are not bound to class 
> instances.
> Technically, we can't apply `hasStaticStorageDuration()` and 
> `isStaticStorageClass` over a `fieldDecl`.
That's a really good point, but the question still remains: since we have 
`hasStaticStorageDuration()` already, can we find a way to use that same 
matcher rather than introduce a new matcher under a new name that does the same 

This time I tested a matcher, and found that you get the correct behavior from 
`varDecl(hasStaticStorageDuration(), hasParent(recordDecl()))`.

I think this is especially important to try to do because we have 
`hasStaticStorageDuration()` and `isStaticStorageClass()`, so adding 
`isStaticDataMember()` adds a third option to possibly confuse users.


cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to