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