aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:796
+ MV.ActiveASTContext->getSourceManager());
+ } else if (const auto *T = Item.second.get<Type>()) {
+ OS << T->getTypeClassName() << "Type : ";
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Do we also need a match for `TypeLoc` matchers, or does the `else` cover
> > that sufficiently well?
> >
> > (Actually, should we handle all of the various matchers at:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h#L141
> > rather than leaving it to an `else`? Then the `else` can become an
> > unreachable so we know to update this interface?)
> The else should be sufficient for most general cases, the only reason some
> are special cased is to improve the output, but I don't want there to be a
> burden to update this interface if new nodes are added.
I should verify: does this map hold arbitrary AST nodes, or does the map only
hold the top-level classes in the AST matching hierarchy?
If it's arbitrary AST nodes, then yeah, I definitely agree the `else` here is
fine. If it's top-level classes instead, we don't add those all that often and
so it doesn't seem like a major burden to keep those in sync.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120185/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120185
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
