njames93 added a comment. In D76990#1948516 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990#1948516>, @ztamas wrote:
> I agree, it seems suspicious that a BinaryOperator matcher does not work in > this case. However, I'm working on this level of the code, I'm looking at the > matchers like an API, what I'm just using in the clang-tidy code, without > changing them. So that's why I added this workaround. I don't know how much > time it would take to fix this issue in the matcher code or whether it will > be fixed in the near future or not, but until then I think it useful to have > this workaround in the caller code, so this clang-tidy check works better. I > added a TODO comment, so it's more visible that we have an issue here, so > it's more probable somebody will fix that working with the matchers. It's not the matchers fault, that's working as intended. its the AST that clang has generated for that source code that looks suspicious. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76990 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
