For consistency with the targetDecl() tests in this file, and because I had an error in the testcase that threw me for a loop. I'll try to find a better solution project-wide though.
Worth mentioning this is handled in add()'s Visitor's VisitObjCPropertyRefExpr?
Worth noting that these two functions are used currently for ObjC?
Would also be good to have a test for implicit property refs (e.g - (int)z; obj.z;) Or maybe this should go in the other diff?
I don't think we should echo the code structure here, it could change.
These functions are used for ObjC because these node types are used for objC - documenting that belongs on the AST class.
Unit tests: fail. 62194 tests passed, 1 failed and 815 were skipped.
Should this be done by RecursiveASTVisitor instead (when shouldVisitImplicitCode() is false)?
If yes, maybe add a FIXME to this patch and try fixing in RAV in a follow-up?
Why is this necessary? Making tests more complicated to avoid warnings does not look right.
See the comment about making tests more complicated to avoid warnings. Same question here and in other instances.
Unit tests: pass. 62195 tests passed, 0 failed and 815 were skipped.