[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [RecursiveASTVisitor] Skip implicit instantiations. (PR #110899)
via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 2 19:05:07 PDT 2024
================
@@ -2069,22 +2069,24 @@ bool RecursiveASTVisitor<Derived>::TraverseTemplateArgumentLocsHelper(
#define DEF_TRAVERSE_TMPL_SPEC_DECL(TMPLDECLKIND, DECLKIND) \
DEF_TRAVERSE_DECL(TMPLDECLKIND##TemplateSpecializationDecl, { \
+ auto TSK = D->getTemplateSpecializationKind(); \
/* For implicit instantiations ("set<int> x;"), we don't want to \
recurse at all, since the instatiated template isn't written in \
the source code anywhere. (Note the instatiated *type* -- \
set<int> -- is written, and will still get a callback of \
TemplateSpecializationType). For explicit instantiations \
("template set<int>;"), we do need a callback, since this \
- is the only callback that's made for this instantiation. \
- We use getTemplateArgsAsWritten() to distinguish. */ \
- if (const auto *ArgsWritten = D->getTemplateArgsAsWritten()) { \
- /* The args that remains unspecialized. */ \
- TRY_TO(TraverseTemplateArgumentLocsHelper( \
- ArgsWritten->getTemplateArgs(), ArgsWritten->NumTemplateArgs)); \
+ is the only callback that's made for this instantiation. */ \
+ if (TSK != TSK_ImplicitInstantiation) { \
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
Do we have to check for `TSK_Undeclared` too? We do that in e.g. `TraverseFunctionHelper()`, which seems like a similar situation to this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110899
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list