mboehme marked 3 inline comments as done.
mboehme added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/utils/ExprSequence.cpp:103
for (const Stmt *Parent : getParentStmts(S, Context)) {
+ // For statements that have multiple parents, make sure we're using the
+ // parent that lies within the sub-tree under Root.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > I find the first part of the comment unclear. Does this loop handle `for`
> > only?
> I think this means English "for" and not C `for`. Could rewrite to `If a
> statement has multiple parents, ` instead.
Yes, this is what I meant. Rephrased as Aaron suggested to remove the ambiguity.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp:1198
+// Null statements (and some other statements) in templates may be shared
+// between the uninstantiated and instantiated versions of the template and
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> Which other stmts? do they produce the same false positive?
I've added the two other examples I'm aware of (continue and break statements)
to the description. However, I haven't been able to use these to construct an
example that triggers the false positive.
In general, any statement that TemplateInstantiator leaves unchanged will have
multiple parents; I'm not sure which other statements this applies to. In my
experience, any statement that contains an expression will be rebuilt, but I
may be missing something here.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52782
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
