steveire added a comment.
Thanks, do you need someone to commit this for you?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:492
+ auto MatchesX = cxxMemberCallExpr(on(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("X")))));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(notMatches(Snippet1, MatchesX));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matches(Snippet2, MatchesX));
----------------
In the `OnImplicitObjectArgument` test, you don't check snippet 1 because it
has no `X`. This line is probably not needed.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:558
+ int m;
+ int f(X x) { return m; }
+ };
----------------
Are we missing a matcher that would reach the type of X in this case?
`hasImplicitObjectExpression`, or something equivalent?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56850/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56850
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
