jkorous marked 4 inline comments as done.
jkorous added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/DirectoryWatcher/DirectoryWatcher-linux.inc.h:116
+
+      DirectoryWatcher::EventKind K = DirectoryWatcher::EventKind::Added;
+      if (ievt->mask & IN_MODIFY) {
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> I don't think I understand this assumption. Have you any specific event in 
> mind that is supposed to be treated as added here? If not, maybe it'd be 
> better to have no default and instead assert that one of the conditions below 
> matched.
SGTM. Will rewrite to Optional<> and assert.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/DirectoryWatcher/DirectoryWatcher-linux.inc.h:135
+        if (!statusOpt.hasValue())
+          K = DirectoryWatcher::EventKind::Removed;
+      }
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> Why? I suppose this deserves a comment.
I'll add this comment:

// The file might have been removed just after we received the event.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/DirectoryWatcher/DirectoryWatcher-linux.inc.h:154
+    errorMsg += llvm::sys::StrError();
+    return true;
+  };
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> The return values seem to be confusing. Any reason not to use `true` for 
> success?
It seems there's no real consensus * about error/success mapping to bool and 
since this is just implementation detail (not a public interface) I think it's 
fine. `llvm::Error` has better semantics but seems a bit heavyweight for this.

* Just tried this: grep -nr "returns true" clang | grep -i error


================
Comment at: clang/lib/DirectoryWatcher/DirectoryWatcher.cpp:95
+
+#if !defined(__has_include)
+#define __has_include(x) 0
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> Why not use CMake checks? You're already partially using them for frameworks.
Do I understand correctly that you suggest doing the check in CMake and 
propagating the result to preprocessor?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D58418/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D58418



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

Reply via email to