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
thing?
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.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25600
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
