klimek accepted this revision.
klimek added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LG
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13249
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
angelgarcia updated this revision to Diff 36099.
angelgarcia added a comment.
Add some comments.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13249
Files:
include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h
Index: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h
===
klimek added a reviewer: rsmith.
klimek added a comment.
+richard to tell us whether that comment is correct :)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13249
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
klimek added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2066-2089
@@ -2058,26 +2065,26 @@
-// InitListExpr is a tricky one, because we want to do all our work on
-// the syntactic form of the listexpr, but this method takes the
-// semantic form by
angelgarcia created this revision.
angelgarcia added a reviewer: klimek.
angelgarcia added subscribers: alexfh, cfe-commits.
create TraverseSyntacticInitListExpr and TraverseSemanticInitListExpr.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13249
Files:
include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h
Index:
angelgarcia added a comment.
Yes, it breaks a few tests:
FAIL: Clang :: Analysis/operator-calls.cpp (598 of 8596)
FAIL: Clang :: Analysis/misc-ps-region-store.cpp (599 of 8596)
FAIL: Clang :: Analysis/array-struct-region.c (602 of 8596)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13249
I think it's worth figuring out when this is called with the semantic or
syntactic version and why this can't lead to double visitation. Then add a
comment while you're changing the method so the next person doesn't have to
figure it all out :)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:15 AM Angel Garcia
klimek added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2097
@@ +2096,3 @@
+template
+bool RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseInitListExpr(InitListExpr *S) {
+ TRY_TO(TraverseSyntacticInitListExpr(S));
Did you try putting an
