aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/ExpressionTraits.cpp:29-34
+ assert(T <= ET_Last && "invalid enum value!");
+ return ExpressionTraitNames[T];
+}
+
+const char *clang::getTraitSpelling(ExpressionTrait T) {
+ assert(T <= ET_Last && "invalid enum value!");
----------------
Isn't `ET_Last` -1?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/TypeTraits.cpp:64
+const char *clang::getTraitName(ArrayTypeTrait T) {
+ assert(T <= ATT_Last && "invalid enum value!");
+ return ArrayTypeTraitNames[T];
----------------
`ATT_Last` is also -1.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/TypeTraits.cpp:69
+const char *clang::getTraitName(UnaryExprOrTypeTrait T) {
+ assert(T <= UETT_Last && "invalid enum value!");
+ return UnaryExprOrTypeTraitNames[T];
----------------
`UETT_Last` is also -1.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:3974
S.Diag(Loc, diag::ext_sizeof_alignof_function_type)
- << TraitKind << ArgRange;
+ << getTraitSpelling(TraitKind) << ArgRange;
return false;
----------------
I think the original code was a bit more clear; would it make sense to make the
diagnostic engine aware of trait kinds so that it does this dance for you? (It
may be overkill given that we don't pass `UnaryExprOrTypeTrait` objects to the
diagnostic engine THAT often, but I'm curious what you think.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81455/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81455
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
