@gribozavr2 - ping?

The delta from https://reviews.llvm.org/D155895 is in clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-trivial-abi.cpp where 1) a comment has been added above the non-trivial move constructor of the Trivial test helper and 2) test expectations have been tweaked to account for _WIN64 and __MINGW32__ (cargo-culting these conditions from the already-existing tests in the top part of this test file).

In D155895#4566903, @thakis wrote:

Looks like this breaks tests on windows: http://45.33.8.238/win/82239/step_7.txt

More granular usage of #if defined(CLANG_ABI_COMPAT) && ... in tests

Rebasing...

Added support for -fclang-abi-compat=17

In D155895#4525417, @gribozavr2 wrote:

@lukasza I think you forgot to upload an updated version of the patch.

Addressed feedback from @gribozavr2

https://llvm.org/docs/MyFirstTypoFix.html#updating-your-change told me to run arc diff... not sure if I should abandon the original revision and reupload a cleaned-up fix instead?

I've tried replicating the deep-matching by saying qualType(hasType(hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType(hasDeclaration(... but this doesn't work because hasDeclaration only returns a matcher for a specific type from a subset of subclasses of Type - this is incompatible with expectations of the proposed hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType which takes a Matcher<Type>.

Do we also need to update the documentation (e.g. to say that ElaboratedType is covered by hasDeclaration)?

Forcing shallow matching means that unit test below will stop passing after this CL.

FWIW, a non-owner LGTM:

• CXXNewExpr seems very similar to CallExpr, so it makes sense that hasDeclaration would behave similarily for both of these expressions (i.e. matching the "callee")
• The issues we've been trying to work through in https://reviews.llvm.org/D24361 mainly revolve around Type and QualType, so I think those issues should not apply to CXXNewExpr matching.

Reverted changes in the patch that are not related to the issue of hasDeclaration not matching *anything* in some cases.

Richard - what are the next steps for this patch?

• Added test where both TemplateSpecializationType and TypedefType are present and both should match regardless of code order inside HasDeclarationMatcher::matchesSpecialized(const QualType &Node...). Removed significance of order inside this matchesSpecialized method.

Richard, could you please take a look?

I am assuming that the expectation I expressed in the unit test is a valid/correct expectation. I guess this is the first thing to validate/ack in the review :-)

In D24268#535463, @rsmith wrote:

This patch looks great, thank you! Do you have an SVN account or do you need someone to commit this for you?

Addressing CR feedbackfrom rsmith@.