- User Since
- Sep 6 2016, 10:12 AM (378 w, 2 d)
Sep 13 2023
@gribozavr2 - ping?
Aug 22 2023
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).
Aug 7 2023
More granular usage of #if defined(CLANG_ABI_COMPAT) && ... in tests
Jul 26 2023
Added support for -fclang-abi-compat=17
Jul 24 2023
Addressed feedback from @gribozavr2
Jul 21 2023
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?
Jul 20 2023
Nov 29 2016
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)?
Nov 28 2016
Forcing shallow matching means that unit test below will stop passing after this CL.
Oct 31 2016
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.
Oct 24 2016
Reverted changes in the patch that are not related to the issue of hasDeclaration not matching *anything* in some cases.
Oct 3 2016
Richard - what are the next steps for this patch?
Sep 26 2016
Sep 23 2016
- 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.
Sep 16 2016
Richard, could you please take a look?
Sep 13 2016
Sep 8 2016
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 :-)
Sep 7 2016
Sep 6 2016
Addressing CR feedbackfrom rsmith@.