NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/PaddingChecker.cpp:78-81 + // We need to be looking at a definition, not just any pointer to the + // declaration. + if (!(RD = RD->getDefinition())) + return; ---------------- tekknolagi wrote: > tekknolagi wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > This check is already in `shouldSkipDecl()` (?) > > Oh yes, you're right. > Actually, I'm not sure if you're right. I think it's necessary here because > it's only tested for C++ classes in shouldSkipDecl(). This tests it for C > structs too. Either we could lift that outside the C++ section of > shouldSkipDecl or repeat it here. Hmm, indeed. Sry! Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D53206 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
