ZaMaZaN4iK added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/EnumCastOutOfRangeChecker.cpp:96 + // Get the value of the expression to cast. + const auto ValueToCastOptional = + C.getSVal(CE->getSubExpr()).getAs<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>(); ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > ZaMaZaN4iK wrote: > > lebedev.ri wrote: > > > ZaMaZaN4iK wrote: > > > > lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > ZaMaZaN4iK wrote: > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > `const auto *` > > > > > > Why do we need this change here? If I understand correctly, with > > > > > > `const auto*` we also need change initializer to > > > > > > `C.getSVal(CE->getSubExpr()).getAs<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>().getPointer()`. > > > > > > But I don't understand why we need this. > > > > > Is `ValueToCastOptional` a pointer, a reference, or just an actual > > > > > `DefinedOrUnknownSVal`? I can't tell. > > > > > (sidenote: would be great to have a clang-tidy check for this.) > > > > `ValueToCastOptional` is `llvm::Optional<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>` > > > See, all my guesses were wrong. That is why it should not be `auto` at > > > all. > > I don't agree with you for this case. Honestly it's like a yet another > > holywar question. If we are talking only about this case - here you can see > > `getAs<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>` part of the expression. this means clearly > > (at least for me) that we get something like `DefinedOrUnknownSVal`. What > > we get? I just press hotkey in my favourite IDE/text editor and see that > > `getAs` returns `llvm::Optional<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>`. From my point of > > view it's clear enough here. > > > > If we are talking more generally about question "When should we use `auto` > > at all? " - we can talk, but not here, I think :) > https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable > comes to mind. > > What we get? I just press hotkey in my favourite IDE/text editor and see > > that getAs returns llvm::Optional<DefinedOrUnknownSVal> > Which hotkey do i need to press to see this here, in the phabricator? > > This really shouldn't be `auto`, if you have to explain that in the > variable's name, justify it in review comments. Ok, didn't know about such LLVM coding standard. Of course, with this information I will fix using `auto` here. Thank you. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33672 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
