================ @@ -44,20 +45,24 @@ class SanitizerSpecialCaseList : public llvm::SpecialCaseList { StringRef Category = StringRef()) const; // Query ignorelisted entries if any bit in Mask matches the entry's section. - // Return 0 if not found. If found, return the line number (starts with 1). - unsigned inSectionBlame(SanitizerMask Mask, StringRef Prefix, StringRef Query, - StringRef Category = StringRef()) const; + // Return NotFound (0,0) if not found. If found, return the file index number + // and the line number (FileIdx, LineNo) (FileIdx starts with 1 and LineNo + // starts with 0). + std::pair<unsigned, unsigned> ---------------- shafik wrote:
I won't insist, but if we won't actually (maybe I am misunderstanding) use the value stored in the pair then a flag makes way more sense. Otherwise, having to use `first` and `second` is just prone to error. I do get that this is local and that we (llvm) is not free of anti-patterns but we should strive to do better in new code. One because future new users might use this to learn and outside developers (even LLMs) will learn this is a good pattern and propagate its use. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141640 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits