lebedev.ri added a comment. In D58894#1418251 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58894#1418251>, @djtodoro wrote:
> @lebedev.ri I agree, thank you! I needed to be more precise in my previous > reply, sorry for that. I thought it will be (somehow) overhead if I change > existing, very basic, matchers. I indeed don't think the existing matchers should be changed to ignore these `,` ops (or implicit casts, like some issue reports propose). > I already implemented a static function that skips comma operands, and > extended this to support member calls, functions, etc. > But, implementing it as a new matcher sounds like better idea. Yes. I think this matcher will be very baseline, and can just be added where needed (with appropriate test coverage, of course), without matcher duplication like in this current diff. > Thanks! Thanks for working on this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58894/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58894 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
