klimek added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:46-49
+enum class MatchDirection {
+ Ancestors,
+ Descendants
+};
----------------
loic-joly-sonarsource wrote:
> klimek wrote:
> > Nice find! Why don't we need more states though?
> > 1. wouldn't hasParent() followed by a hasAncestor() also trigger the
> > memoization? (if so, we'd need transitive / non-transitive)
> > 2. can we trigger a directional match and a non-directional (non-traversal,
> > for example, explicit) match in the same memoization scope?
> 1. Yes, I'm going to add it
> 2. Sorry, I did not understand what you mean...
>
Re 2: nevermind, we don't memoize non-transitive matches (other than hasParent
/ hasChild), right?
In that case, I'm wondering whether the simpler solution is to just not memoize
hasParent / hasChild - wouldn't that be more in line with the rest of the
memoization?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80025/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80025
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
