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

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:48 PM Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Why would we need a new matcher? We already have
has(ignoringParenImpCasts(x)) which would be equivalent to today's has(x),
don't we?

> 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/20160519/661e32bc/attachment.html>