yamaguchi added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaInit.cpp:892
+ SpellingLoc = SemaRef.getSourceManager().getSpellingLoc(SpellingLoc);
+ if (!(SpellingLoc.isValid() &&
+ SemaRef.getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(SpellingLoc))) {
----------------
yamaguchi wrote:
> v.g.vassilev wrote:
> > yamaguchi wrote:
> > > v.g.vassilev wrote:
> > > > I'd avoid double negations. Could you use `isInvalid` instead of
> > > > `!isValid`. That would make the condition more readable.
> > > It's not (!SpellingLoc.isValid()) but is !((SpellingLoc.isValid() &&
> > > SemaRef.getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(SpellingLoc))
> > >
> > I'd rewrite this using early returns:
> > ```
> > if (SpellingLoc.isInvalid() ||
> > SemaRef.getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(SpellingLoc))
> > return;
> > ...
> > ```
> Do you think I should change this to (SpellingLoc.isInvalid() ||
> !(SemaRef.getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(SpellingLoc)) ??
Oh, I see.
Sorry I didn't see your reply because I was typing mine.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32646
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
