eduucaldas marked 2 inline comments as done.
eduucaldas added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTest.cpp:2192
R"cpp(
+class osstream {};
struct X {
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> eduucaldas wrote:
> > gribozavr2 wrote:
> > > I don't think we need a separate class to show the left shift operator.
> > > The declaration below can be:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > friend X operator<<(X&, const X&);
> > > ```
> > If we don't bother much about "realistic" operator declarations we could
> > drop all the `friend` and declare every operator in their most concise
> > form. WDYT
> I think we shouldn't try to make tests realistic in terms of function names
> etc., but we should try to cover as many different AST shapes as possible. In
> the case of binary operators, we have three cases -- free function, friend
> function, member function, that all generate slightly different ASTs, so I
> believe we should try to cover them all.
But those all regard the operators declaration.
Here we test the operator call expression - `CXXOperatorCallExpr`.
I think we should test friend function declarations when we add support for
them in the tree, and then we add tests for declaration of friend operators,
friend member functions and whatnot.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82954/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82954
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
