hintonda added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.cpp:21
@@ +20,3 @@
+
+static StringRef
+makeDynamicExceptionString(const SourceManager &SM,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Instead of a bunch of static functions, would an unnamed namespace make more
> sense?
Just following the pattern established in other checkers so as to minimize the
number of changes, but will change to namespace.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.cpp:34
@@ +33,3 @@
+
+static CharSourceRange makeMoveRange(const SourceManager &SM,
+ const LangOptions &LangOps,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Since this function is only called one time and is a one-liner, perhaps it
> makes more sense to inline the body at the call site?
Was a bit more involved, but last round of changes simplified it. Will
simplify even more.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.cpp:46
@@ +45,3 @@
+ const SmallVector<Token, 16> &Tokens) {
+ // Find throw token -- it's a keyword, so there can't be more than one.
Also,
+ // it should be near the end of the declaration, so search from the end.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Pathologically terrible counter-case: `void func() throw(decltype(throw 12)
> *)`
Good point, looks like I need a full fledged parser to catch 100% or the cases
-- or we could ignore these corner cases.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.h:22
@@ +21,3 @@
+/// \brief Replace dynamic exception specifications, with
+/// `noexcept` (or user-defined macro) or `noexcept(true)`.
+/// \code
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think this comment means `noexcept(false)` instead? Or is there a reason to
> replace with `noexcept(true)` instead of just `noexcept`?
Typo, should just be noexcept.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18575
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
