[cfe-commits] [Patch][Review Request]Fix for PR7287
Jim Goodnow II
jim at thegoodnows.net
Mon Nov 1 14:53:54 PDT 2010
At 02:50 PM 11/1/2010, John McCall wrote:
>On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:
> > At 02:06 PM 11/1/2010, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Jim Goodnow II wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> Please review and commit this patch for PR7287. Thanks.
> >> This isn't quite the right fix, because it won't handle, e.g.,
> >> direct calls to an operator
> >> operator+(x, y)
> >> Instead, we should probably use FD->getIdentifier() and bail out
> >> early if it returns NULL.
> >> - Doug
> > Well, those calls would actually be MemberCallExpr's, so it wouldn't
> > occur in VisitCallExpr. The problem is really just an artifact of
> > CXXOperatorCalls being grouped together with Calls. Eventually, they
> > will probably be separated and this check can go away.
>Both CXXOperatorCallExpr and CXXMemberCallExpr are subclasses of CallExpr.
Yes, but CXXMemberCallExpr's are visited separately from
CXXOperatorCallExpr and CallExpr which are visited together.
More information about the cfe-commits