jdoerfert added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2713-2714 +/// \endcode +extern const internal::VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<Stmt, AttributedStmt> + attributedStmt; + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Design-wise, I'm on the fence here. AST matchers match the AST nodes that > Clang produces, and from that perspective, this makes a lot of sense. But > `AttributedStmt` is a bit of a hack in some ways, and do we want to expose > that hack to AST matcher users? e.g., is there a reason we shouldn't make > `returnStmt(hasAttr(attr::Likely))` work directly rather than making the user > pick their way through the `AttributedStmt`? This is more in line with how > you check for a declaration with a particular attribute and seems like the > more natural way to surface this. > > For the moment, since this is following the current AST structure in Clang, I > think this is fine. But I'm curious if @klimek or perhaps @sammccall has an > opinion here. I think a way to find any kind of statement (or expression) that has a specific attribute is very useful. How that should look, idk. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120949/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120949 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
