aaron.ballman added a comment.
This is looking good, aside from a few small nits. The only question I have
remaining is whether this should be on FunctionProtoType or FunctionType? I
think being on FunctionProtoType (how you have it) is preferable. @sbenza or
@klimek, do you agree?
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3254
@@ -3252,1 +3253,3 @@
+ FunctionProtoType)) {
+ if (const auto *FnTy = internal::getFunctionProtoType(Node))
return FnTy->hasDynamicExceptionSpec();
----------------
Since the type isn't explicitly spelled out in the initialization, probably
should use `const FunctionProtoType *` instead of `const auto *`.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3274
@@ -3270,1 +3273,3 @@
+ FunctionProtoType)) {
+ const auto *FnTy = internal::getFunctionProtoType(Node);
----------------
Same here.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20687
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
