ymandel added a comment. I'm having second thoughts about this -- I prefer the approach I ended up taking in https://reviews.llvm.org/D66676, which is subtly different.
However, getRuleMatchLoc() will be useful a different purpose: when only reporting a diagnostic, with no corresponding changes. So, I plan to rework this into two revisions: one to match https://reviews.llvm.org/D66676 (and keep the tests esssentially as they are) and one to add getRuleMatchLoc for future use. I can also make both changes in the same revision, if you prefer. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Transformer.cpp:197 // Verify the existence and validity of the AST node that roots this rule. + SourceLocation RootLoc = tooling::detail::getRuleMatchLoc(Result); ---------------- gribozavr wrote: > This comment was moved into the function and now looks out of place here. removed in both places. Even in the function, it didn't add anything meaningful to the assert() itself. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66652/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66652 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
