jdoerfert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp:370
+ : nullptr;
+ }
return nullptr;
----------------
dim wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > Consistent style please:
> >
> > ```
> > if (Value *StrLen = emitStrLen(SrcStr, B, DL, TLI)
> > return B.CreateGEP(B.getInt8Ty(), SrcStr, StrLen, "strchr");
> > ```
> Consistent with what? :) In this same file, I see at least the following
> calls to `emitStrLen`, some of which use the `if(!x) return nullptr`
> spelling, others which use `return x ? y : nullptr`:
>
> ```
> Value *DstLen = emitStrLen(Dst, B, DL, TLI);
> if (!DstLen)
> return nullptr;
> ```
>
> ```
> if (Dst == Src) { // stpcpy(x,x) -> x+strlen(x)
> Value *StrLen = emitStrLen(Src, B, DL, TLI);
> return StrLen ? B.CreateInBoundsGEP(B.getInt8Ty(), Dst, StrLen) : nullptr;
> }
> ```
>
> ```
> Value *StrLen = emitStrLen(CI->getArgOperand(1), B, DL, TLI);
> if (!StrLen)
> return nullptr;
> ```
>
> ```
> Value *Len = emitStrLen(CI->getArgOperand(2), B, DL, TLI);
> if (!Len)
> return nullptr;
> ```
>
> ```
> Value *StrLen = emitStrLen(Src, B, DL, TLI);
> return StrLen ? B.CreateInBoundsGEP(B.getInt8Ty(), Dst, StrLen) : nullptr;
> ```
>
> But I'm fine with whatever you are suggesting, obviously. It just seems
> strange to introduce yet another spelling variant, making it less consistent,
> not more...
Consistent with the two prior lines.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70143/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70143
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
