balazske added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:851
+ } getPointerTy(ACtx);
+ class {
+ public:
----------------
Why has this class different layout than `GetPointerTy` and `GetRestrictTy`
(beneath that here is no `ASTContext`)? It would be better if all these classes
look the same way: First is the operator with `QualType`, then operator with
`Optional` that calls the other version of the operator. And all of these can
be "unnamed" classes?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:890
- const QualType VoidPtrTy = ACtx.VoidPtrTy; // void *
- const QualType IntPtrTy = ACtx.getPointerType(IntTy); // int *
+ const QualType VoidPtrTy = getPointerTy(VoidTy); // void *
+ const QualType IntPtrTy = getPointerTy(IntTy); // int *
----------------
Is it better to use `ACtx.VoidPtrTy`?
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1321
- Optional<QualType> Mode_tTy = lookupType("mode_t", ACtx);
+ Optional<QualType> Mode_tTy = lookupTy("mode_t");
----------------
It is better to get every type at the start before adding functions, or group
the functions and get some types at the start of these groups but mark the
groups at least with comments.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86531/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86531
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
