aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman marked 2 inline comments as done.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM!
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/RedundantStringInitCheck.cpp:58
+ }
+ if (B.isInvalid() || E.isInvalid())
+ return llvm::None;
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Should we be worried about macros here?
> >
> > It looks a bit like we're ignoring macros entirely for this check, so maybe
> > that can be done as a separate patch instead. The situation I am worried
> > about is:
> > ```
> > #if SOMETHING
> > #define INIT ""
> > #else
> > #define INIT "haha"
> > #endif
> >
> > std::string S = INIT;
> > ```
> I feel that everything in this check needs to check macros, but that's
> probably a follow up patch
Okay, separate patch it is.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/RedundantStringInitCheck.cpp:110
namedDecl(
- varDecl(
- hasType(hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType(recordType(
- hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasStringTypeName))))),
- hasInitializer(expr(ignoringImplicit(anyOf(
- EmptyStringCtorExpr, EmptyStringCtorExprWithTemporaries)))))
- .bind("vardecl"),
+ varDecl(StringType, hasInitializer(EmptyStringInit)).bind("vardecl"),
unless(parmVarDecl())),
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Should this also match on something like `std::string foo{};` as a
> > redundant init? Similar question for the other cases. (Could be done in a
> > follow-up patch if desired.)
> Probably should, however this is not what this patch is about
Okay, I'm fine with that as well.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
