[cfe-dev] [AST Matchers] has matcher bug?

[Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev]

The question is: in how many places the ignoring implicit casts is needed
for has? I am not sure about statistics, but if it would turned out that in
more than half places, the developer that wrote check didn't need that,
then I would probably go with option 2.

For option 2 I would suggest to add another matcher that would be
equivalent to "has" that we have right now, but I am not sure how to call
it. "hasIndirect" would suggest that it only accepts indirect childs.

Anyway, I like option 2 more, because it seems more resonable.


Piotr


17.05.2016 12:22 PM "Manuel Klimek" <klimek at google.com> napisał(a):

> The problem is that in C++ you often have implicit conversions that are
> completely irrelevant.
> has() ignoring implicit conversions is more closely resembling what's
> written in the code.
>
> Both options:
> 1. adding a new function hasDirect
> 2. changing has() to not go through implicit conversions, and refactoring
> all uses of has() to has(ignoringParenImpCasts())
> ... seem fine to me, with different trade-offs.
>
> Thoughts?
> /Manuel
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:06 PM Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for response Alexey.
>> Is there any reason why it do so? This is very unintuitive and it also
>> makes it harder and uglier to use matchers - instead of saying
>> something(has(something2())) I have to say
>> something2(hasParent(something())).
>>
>> Piotr
>>
>> 2016-05-15 13:38 GMT+02:00 Alexey Sidorin <alexey.v.sidorin at ya.ru>:
>>
>>> Hello Piotr,
>>>
>>> has() matcher ignores implicit casts and parens. That's not a bug
>>> (however, it will be good to point it in doxygen).
>>>
>>>
>>> 13.05.2016 15:27, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev пишет:
>>>
>>> I am have a problem with has matcher. It doesn't work for cases like
>>> implicitCastExpr(has(implicitCastExpr()))
>>> or
>>>
>>> cxxMemberCallExpr(has(materializeTemporaryExpr())))
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> returnStmt(has(implicitCastExpr()))
>>>
>>> Here is a bug in bugzilla
>>>
>>> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27713
>>>
>>> Am I doing something wrong or it is a bug? This thing blocks me on 2 clang-tidy checks that I am working on.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160519/912be7c2/attachment.html>