mboehme marked an inline comment as done.
mboehme added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContext.h:100
+ // used `StorageLocation` subclasses and make them use a
`BumpPtrAllocator`.
+ Locs.push_back(std::make_unique<T>(std::forward<Args>(args)...));
+ return *cast<T>(Locs.back().get());
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Would emplace back work? That returns a reference to the just emplaced
> element saving us the call to `back` making the code a bit more concise.
Nice -- thanks for the suggestion! Done.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowEnvironment.h:328
+ template <typename T, typename... Args>
+ std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of<StorageLocation, T>::value, T &>
+ create(Args &&...args) {
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Just curious, what is the reason for repeating the `enable_if` here in
> addition to the one in the called function? Do we get better error messages?
Yes, the idea is:
- We get error messages from the interface of `create()` rather than the
implementation
- The `enable_if` documents intent. (The comment above states this intent
too, but it's always nicer to have the code itself state the intent if
possible.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147302/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147302
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
