Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66259
llvm-svn: 368942
Summary:
This change updates `isDerivedFrom` to support Objective-C classes by
converting it to a polymorphic matcher.
Notes:
The matching behavior for Objective-C classes is modeled to match the
behavior of `isDerivedFrom` with C++ classes. To that effect,
`isDerivedFrom` matches aliased types of derived Objective-C classes,
including compatibility aliases. To achieve this, the AST visitor has
been updated to map compatibility aliases to their underlying
Objective-C class.
`isSameOrDerivedFrom` also provides similar behaviors for C++ and
Objective-C classes. The behavior that
`cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("X"))` does not match
`class Y {}; typedef Y X;` is mirrored for Objective-C in that
`objcInterfaceDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("X"))` does not match either
`@interface Y @end typedef Y X;` or
`@interface Y @end @compatibility_alias X Y;`.
Test Notes:
Ran clang unit tests.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, jordan_rose, rjmccall, klimek, alexfh, gribozavr
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, gribozavr
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60543
llvm-svn: 368632
Summary:
`ignoringElidableConstructorCall` is a traversal matcher, but its tests are
grouped with narrowing-matcher tests. This revision moves them to the correct
file.
Reviewers: gribozavr
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65963
llvm-svn: 368326
Summary:
The `ExprWithCleanups` node is added to the AST along with the elidable
CXXConstructExpr. If it is the outermost node of the node being matched, ignore
it as well.
Reviewers: gribozavr
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65944
llvm-svn: 368319
Summary:
Changes:
- add an ast matcher for deductiong guide.
- allow isExplicit matcher for deductiong guide.
- add hasExplicitSpecifier matcher which give access to the expression of the explicit specifier if present.
Reviewers: klimek, rsmith, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: aaron.ballman, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61552
llvm-svn: 363855
Summary:
`OMPClause` is the base class, it is not descendant from **any**
other class, therefore for it to work with e.g.
`VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<>`, it needs to be handled here.
Reviewers: sbenza, bkramer, pcc, klimek, hokein, gribozavr, aaron.ballman, george.karpenkov
Reviewed By: gribozavr, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: guansong, jdoerfert, alexfh, ABataev, cfe-commits
Tags: #openmp, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57112
llvm-svn: 356675
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary:
Much like hasArg for various call expressions, this allows LibTooling users to
match against a member of an initializer list.
This is currently being used as part of the abseil-duration-scale clang-tidy
check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56090
llvm-svn: 350523
Summary:
This change adds a new AST matcher for block expressions.
Test Notes:
Ran the clang unit tests.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55546
llvm-svn: 349004
Summary:
The new matchers can be used to check if an expression is type-, value- or instantiation-dependent
in a templated context.
These matchers are used in a clang-tidy check and generally useful as the
problem of unresolved templates occurs more often in clang-tidy and they
provide an easy way to check for this issue.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, alexfh, klimek
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51880
llvm-svn: 341958
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
Jonas Devlieghere