LegalizeAdulthood added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16526#334742, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I get the same behavior from the existing has() matcher -- how is this meant > to differ? Hmm! Good question. I suppose it doesn't do anything different. I was thinking how to write such matching expressions and I looked through the matcher reference and the header file for things related to ReturnStmt and found only `returns`. It never occurred to me to use `has`. Not seeing returnStmt mentioned anywhere, it seemed that I couldn't write such matching expressions and needed a new matcher. So the question remains: is it bad to have a matcher that explicitly models the narrowing for a return statement's return expression when you can achieve the same thing with `has`? http://reviews.llvm.org/D16526 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
