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

[Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev]

I don't see any objection, so I am taking care of this refactor right now.

2016-05-19 18:55 GMT+02:00 Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>:

> So, I'm all for (2) unless we find people who object, and making people
> write has(ignoringParenImpCasts())
> That's already what we force people to do for various has* versions.
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:31 PM Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20160530/ccf5ee72/attachment.html>