ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2332
S->isSemanticForm() ? S->getSyntacticForm() : S, Queue));
TRY_TO(TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr(
S->isSemanticForm() ? S : S->getSemanticForm(), Queue));
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> Instead of adding a whole new if statement, could you wrap the second
> existing TRY_TO in `if(shouldVisitImplicitCode())` ?
Despite looking very similar, that would **not** be equivalent to the current
version.
For most init lists (that do not have alternative "form"), the following
invariants hold:
```
InitList* E = ...;
assert(E->isSemanticForm());
assert(E->isSyntacticForm());
assert(E->getSynacticForm() == nullptr);
```
This subtle fact means the current code does not traversed the list twice if
they do not have an alternative form (either semantic or syntactic).
Now, if we only run the first statement, we will call
`TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr(S->getSyntacticForm())` and
`S->getSyntacticForm()` returns `null`. So we don't traverse anything.
I tried various ways to keep both calls, but they all ended up being too
complicated, hence the final version. Let me know if you see a better way to
address this.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64762/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64762
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
