Alexander_Droste marked 14 inline comments as done.
================
Comment at:
tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/Container.hpp:10-11
@@ +9,4 @@
+///
+/// \file
+/// This file defines convenience templates for C++ container class usage.
+///
----------------
Alexander_Droste wrote:
> gribozavr wrote:
> > This file re-invents a lot of APIs that are currently under review by the
> > C++ committee under the Ranges effort. I think most of the wrappers are
> > more or less trivial and should use STL directly, or the wrappers should
> > match exactly the currently proposed STL APIs.
> Ok, I'll try to mimic the API of the proposal. Can I keep the `cont::`
> namespace?
I reduced the header to a single function. Is that acceptable?
================
Comment at: tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/Container.hpp:67
@@ +66,3 @@
+
+/// \brief Deletes first appearance of given pointer.
+///
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> Why is this a separate overload?
I removed the function.
================
Comment at:
tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPI-Checker/MPIBugReporter.hpp:22
@@ +21,3 @@
+
+namespace mpi {
+
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> The namespace should be nested under `clang`, we shouldn't be claiming the
> top-level `mpi` namespace.
Should the `util` and `cont` namespaces be nested under `clang` too?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
