ObjCIvarExpr is *not* a subclass of MemberExpr, and a separate matcher
is required to support it.
Adding a hasDeclaration support as well, as it's not very useful without
it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49701
llvm-svn: 338137
Adding a matcher for BinaryOperator and cxxOperatorCallExpr to be able to
decide whether it is any kind of assignment operator or not. This would be
useful since allows us to easily detect assignments via matchers for static
analysis (Tidy, SA) purposes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44893
llvm-svn: 328618
Two new matchers for `CXXNewExpr` are added which may be useful e.g. in
`clang-tidy` checkers. One of them is `isArray` which matches `new[]` but not
plain `new`. The other one, `hasArraySize` matches `new[]` for a given size.
llvm-svn: 318909
Summary:
Allow the `isDefinition()` matcher to apply to `ObjCMethodDecl` nodes, in
addition to those it already supports. For whatever reason, `ObjCMethodDecl`
does not inherit from `FunctionDecl` and so this is specialization is necessary.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, malcolm.parsons, alexshap
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits, klimek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39948
llvm-svn: 318152
constructors when deciding whether classes should be passed indirectly.
This fixes ABI differences between Clang and GCC:
* Previously, Clang ignored the move constructor when making this
determination. It now takes the move constructor into account, per
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/pull/17 (this change may
seem recent, but the ABI change was agreed on the Itanium C++ ABI
list a long time ago).
* Previously, Clang's behavior when the copy constructor was deleted
was unstable -- depending on whether the lazy declaration of the
copy constructor had been triggered, you might get different behavior.
We now eagerly declare the copy constructor whenever its deletedness
is unclear, and ignore deleted copy/move constructors when looking for
a trivial such constructor.
This also fixes an ABI difference between Clang and MSVC:
* If the copy constructor would be implicitly deleted (but has not been
lazily declared yet), for instance because the class has an rvalue
reference member, we would pass it directly. We now pass such a class
indirectly, matching MSVC.
Based on a patch by Vassil Vassilev, which was based on a patch by Bernd
Schmidt, which was based on a patch by Reid Kleckner!
This is a re-commit of r310401, which was reverted in r310464 due to ARM
failures (which should now be fixed).
llvm-svn: 310983
constructors when deciding whether classes should be passed indirectly.
This fixes ABI differences between Clang and GCC:
* Previously, Clang ignored the move constructor when making this
determination. It now takes the move constructor into account, per
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/pull/17 (this change may
seem recent, but the ABI change was agreed on the Itanium C++ ABI
list a long time ago).
* Previously, Clang's behavior when the copy constructor was deleted
was unstable -- depending on whether the lazy declaration of the
copy constructor had been triggered, you might get different behavior.
We now eagerly declare the copy constructor whenever its deletedness
is unclear, and ignore deleted copy/move constructors when looking for
a trivial such constructor.
This also fixes an ABI difference between Clang and MSVC:
* If the copy constructor would be implicitly deleted (but has not been
lazily declared yet), for instance because the class has an rvalue
reference member, we would pass it directly. We now pass such a class
indirectly, matching MSVC.
llvm-svn: 310401
Summary:
I needed to know whether a FieldDecl had an in-class
initializer for D26453. I used a narrowing matcher there, but a
traversal matcher might be generally useful.
Reviewers: sbenza, bkramer, klimek, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: aaron.ballman, Prazek, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28034
llvm-svn: 290492
George Karpenkov