wristow added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp:1135
MemberExpr *ME2 = dyn_cast<MemberExpr>(RHS);
- if (dyn_cast<FieldDecl>(ME2->getMemberDecl()) != Field)
+ if (!ME2 || dyn_cast<FieldDecl>(ME2->getMemberDecl()) != Field)
return nullptr;
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> I would prefer:
>
> if (MemberExpr *ME2 = dyn_cast<MemberExpr>(RHS)) {
> if (ME2->getMemberDecl() == Field)
> return Field;
> }
> return nullptr;
I see that change removes the `dyn_cast<FieldDecl>`. Was that intended, or an
oversight?
In terms of changing the code-structure, in code on it's own, I do like the
approach you described. But in this case, there is a sequence of `if
(<condition1>) return nullptr; ... if (conditionN) return nullptr; return
Field;`. Then after the block containing that set of guarded `nullptr` returns
with a final `return Field;`, there is a similar block. And then there is a
third block with a similar set. So changing the structure in that way breaks
that pattern. With that in mind, do you still want that change done?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29208
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
