[cfe-dev] ignoring*() and hasParent() matchers
Michael Jabbour via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Jul 7 07:23:01 PDT 2018
Thanks for the confirmation. I have learned a lot from your great
On 06/07/2018 11:03 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> That's what I'd do, too.
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, 00:50 Michael Jabbour via cfe-dev,
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> I ended up writing my matcher like this:
> expr().bind("literal"), //inline bind call using a
> redundant node matcher
> hasAncestor( //climb up the AST to the nearest
> //check that this varDecl satisfies the original condition
> Any feedback is appreciated, as I am completely new to LibTooling...
> P.S.: The actual matcher I am working on is far more complicated.
> Inverting it (i.e. using my very first example) would result in
> much more difficult problems. Although this seems like a
> roundabout hack, it might be effective when nested inside matchers
> that have already been tested
> On 05/07/2018 7:31 PM, Michael Jabbour wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> When using has*() it is sometimes desirable to use
>> ignoringParenCasts(), for example (from the docs):
>> Is there any way to get the same effect when hasParent(), e.g.:
>> Obviously this does not work, but what is the best way to achieve
>> a similar effect?
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev