- User Since
- Sep 5 2013, 6:50 AM (406 w, 3 d)
May 11 2021
I'm not certain what strong opinions I've voiced on the mailing list about that. Was it just that I think hasDescendant can lead to unexpected matches and a more-specific matcher should always be used when available (such as hasArgument)? I do think has, hasDescendant, hasAncestor etc have their uses and they get more useful with utilities like forFunction.
May 10 2021
Adding Yitzhak as a reviewer. I notice that at least the name of a cxxBaseSpecifier is not supported and I don't know if that (or lack of typeloc support) is desired in the Transformer design.
May 6 2021
This looks good to me. I tried running it in clang-query, which crashes with a matcher like
May 5 2021
Please run llvm-project/clang/docs/tools/dump_ast_matchers.py to generate updated documentation for this (there is a urlopen(url) which slows things down, so I usually comment that out when running it).
Hi, thanks for this. I'm not sure there was enough assent on the mailing list or agreement on the direction, but it might indeed make sense to put a patch together to discuss it.
May 1 2021
LGTM, but I think you could split it into 3 commits with a commit message saying what each is doing. "Simplify a lot of" doesn't say anything specific about what this patch does. It looks like you could split it into
Apr 30 2021
Apr 29 2021
I implemented something like this recently too. The code I was trying to refactor was something like
Apr 27 2021
Fix windows build
Apr 23 2021
Apr 22 2021
Apr 19 2021
Apr 18 2021
Your implementation is getting very complicated and it requires many comments.
Apr 17 2021
Apr 16 2021
Apr 15 2021
Apr 14 2021
Indeed, I just this evening discovered the need for this to be stable across runs for testing.
Apr 13 2021
Apr 12 2021
Apr 11 2021
Add locations for CXXBaseSpecifier
Apr 7 2021
Apr 3 2021
Yes, please remove the line instead.
Mar 28 2021
@nick I think this also might need to be rebased again, sorry.
@nick Sorry that getting these changes merged takes so long.
Mar 27 2021
I'll commit this on Wednesday if none of the other reviewers object by then.
Also adds the file to the build tree, which the comments suggested would happen, but wasn't.
Mar 26 2021
Mar 23 2021
Does anything prevent this going in now?
Mar 21 2021
Mar 20 2021
@thakis Do you have any more on this? Can we de-duplicate?
Mar 18 2021
Mar 17 2021
Could you rebase this? Parts of it were common with another patch which was merged.
Mar 16 2021