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

[Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev]

Sure, I assumed that the feature to "has" be equvalent to
has(ignoringParenImpCasts(x))
was important enough, to have new matcher, so you would not have to write
has(ignoringParenImpCasts(x)).

2016-05-19 17:10 GMT+02:00 Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>:

> 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/20160519/8d774819/attachment.html>