gribozavr2 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTest.cpp:2192
R"cpp(
+class osstream {};
struct X {
----------------
eduucaldas wrote:
> 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.
The call expression AST node can be meaningfully different between calls to
member and non-member functions.
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
