Rakete1111 added a comment.
> Is that a problem?
I don't think so, because `shouldVisitImplicitCode()` doesn't mean that it only
visits implicit code, it's not `onlyVisitImplicitCode()` :) In fact, I would be
surprised if the template parameters were only visited once.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprCXX.cpp:21
#include "clang/Basic/IdentifierTable.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
using namespace clang;
----------------
You don't need this header.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprCXX.cpp:1010
+ return std::count_if(List->begin(), List->end(),
+ [](const NamedDecl *D) { return !D->isImplicit(); });
}
----------------
You could store the lambda in a variable instead of having two times the same
exact lambda expression.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:840
+ "template param scope");
+ KnownDependent = TemplateParamScope->getParent()
+ ->getTemplateParamParent() != nullptr;
----------------
I think you should add an `assert` to verify that `getParent()` doesn't return
`nullptr`, just to be safe from UB.
================
Comment at: unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp:126
+ const T &NodeMatch, StringRef ExpectedPrinted) {
+ std::vector<std::string> Args {
+ "-std=c++98",
----------------
LLVM style guide says that if you are using a braced-init-list to initialize an
object, you have to use an `=`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36527
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
