aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/ReadabilityTidyModule.cpp:84
+ CheckFactories.registerCheck<RedundantPreprocessorCheck>(
+ "readability-redundant-preprocessor");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<RedundantFunctionPtrDereferenceCheck>(
----------------
Please keep this list sorted alphabetically.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantPreprocessorCheck.cpp:56-59
+ StringRef SourceText =
+ Lexer::getSourceText(CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(ConditionRange),
+ PP.getSourceManager(), PP.getLangOpts());
+ std::string Condition = getCondition(SourceText);
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> vmiklos wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > I'm a little confused. To me, it seems like you acquired the condition
> > > already -- doesn't `ConditionRange` actually cover the, well, condition
> > > range? This is how I imagined it:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > #ifdef CUTE_PANDA_CUBS
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ConditionRange
> > > ```
> > > Why is there a need for `getCondition`? Is there any? If there is (maybe
> > > the acquired text contains other things), can you document it? I haven't
> > > played with `PPCallbacks` much, so I'm fine with being in the wrong.
> > ConditionRange covers more than what you expect:
> >
> > ```
> > #if FOO == 4
> > ^~~~~~~~~
> > void f();
> > ~~~~~~~~~
> > #endif
> > ~~~~~~
> > ```
> >
> > to find out if the condition of the `#if` is the same as a previous one, I
> > want to extract just `FOO == 4` from that, then deal with that part similar
> > to `#ifdef` and `#ifndef`, which are easier as you have a single Token for
> > the condition. But you're right, I should add a comment explaining this.
> Oh my god. There is no tool or a convenient method for this??? I had the
> displeasure of working with the preprocessor in the last couple months, and I
> get shocked by things like this almost every day.
>
> Yea, unfortunately you will have to write excessive amount of comments to
> counterweights the shortcomings of `Preprocessor` :/
This is working around a bug, and I think it would be better to fix that bug
instead of jump through these hoops here.
`Preprocessor::EvaluateDirectiveExpression()` needs to squirrel away the
condition range in the `DirectiveEvalResult` it returns. I'll take a stab at it
and report back.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54349
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
