fwolff marked 3 inline comments as done.
fwolff added inline comments.

================
Comment at: 
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ContainerDataPointerCheck.cpp:76
+                    arraySubscriptExpr(hasLHS(ContainerExpr), hasRHS(Zero))))))
+          .bind(AddressOfName),
       this);
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> Nice, I do like this, it is quite a bit more succinct.  One thing that is a 
> bit less clear to me is that the previous expression was a bit more 
> restrictive in the parameter types to certain expressions, is there a reason 
> that you don't expect that to matter much in practice?  If a malformed input 
> is provided, we could now match certain things that we didn't previously, or 
> am I not matching up the conditions carefully enough?
I have indeed changed things slightly to make everything more consistent. For 
instance, calling `&vp->operator[](0)` currently does not yield a warning ([[ 
https://godbolt.org/z/M1hGvGdWr | Godbolt link ]]), but `&v.operator[](0)` 
does, because the old check allowed a pointer to a container for a 
`cxxOperatorCallExpr()` (line 62 on the left) but not for 
`cxxMemberCallExpr()`. I think this was simply an oversight because the check 
was written in such a redundant way; my version covers both.

So yes, I have made some checks a bit less restrictive, but I think that's an 
improvement. Or which cases were you thinking of exactly?


================
Comment at: 
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ContainerDataPointerCheck.cpp:99
+      Lexer::getSourceText(CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(SourceRange),
+                           *Result.SourceManager, getLangOpts()));
+
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> The diff shows up odd here, is there a hard tab or is that just the rendering?
I think this is Phabricator's way of saying that the only thing that was 
changed in this line is the indentation. I haven't used any tabs.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D113863/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D113863

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to