eduucaldas marked 2 inline comments as done.
eduucaldas added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:190
+ return N->kind() == NodeKind::NameSpecifier;
+ }
+};
----------------
eduucaldas wrote:
> gribozavr2 wrote:
> > Should there be getters for various parts of the specifier?
> I think not.
Pospone to interface discussion with Yitzhak
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.h:214
+ return N->kind() == NodeKind::UnqualifiedId;
+ }
+};
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> Could you add TODOs about adding accessors?
Pospone to interface discussion with Yitzhak
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.cpp:178
}
+std::vector<syntax::NameSpecifier *> syntax::NestedNameSpecifier::specifiers()
{
----------------
I was thinking and our problem is bigger than not testing for `NodeRole`s, we
don't test accessors at all!
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/Nodes.cpp:182
+ for (auto *C = firstChild(); C; C = C->nextSibling()) {
+ if (C->role() == syntax::NodeRole::NestedNameSpecifier_specifier)
+ Children.push_back(llvm::cast<syntax::NameSpecifier>(C));
----------------
This should be an assert for now, as if that is not true it would be a logic
problem. Same reasoning applies to `CompoundStatement`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81168/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81168
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
