aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/SuspiciousEnumUsageCheck.cpp:46
+ return llvm::APSInt::compareValues(E1->getInitVal(),
+ E2->getInitVal()) == -1;
});
----------------
I would test for `< 0` rather than a direct equality test (compare functions
generally follow the C idioms).
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/SuspiciousEnumUsageCheck.cpp:61-62
ValueRange Range1(Enum1), Range2(Enum2);
- return (Range1.MaxVal < Range2.MinVal) || (Range2.MaxVal < Range1.MinVal);
+ bool Less1 = llvm::APSInt::compareValues(Range1.MaxVal, Range2.MinVal) == -1;
+ bool Less2 = llvm::APSInt::compareValues(Range2.MaxVal, Range1.MinVal) == -1;
+ return Less1 || Less2;
----------------
Same here, though I would also get rid of the local variables and just perform
the comparison in the return statement.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-suspicious-enum-usage.cpp:1
-// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-suspicious-enum-usage %t --
-config="{CheckOptions: [{key: misc-suspicious-enum-usage.StrictMode, value:
0}]}" --
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-suspicious-enum-usage %t --
-config="{CheckOptions: [{key: misc-suspicious-enum-usage.StrictMode, value:
0}]}" -- -std=c++11
----------------
I thought we built in C++11 mode by default these days?
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-suspicious-enum-usage.cpp:122
+struct a<f<ad, ae, af>> {
+ enum { ah = ad::m,
+ ai = ae::m,
----------------
This seems like a lot of complicated code for the test case -- can this be
reduced further?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37572
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
