yvvan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33644#793594, @klimek wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33644#793577, @yvvan wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33644#793573, @klimek wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33644#783903, @yvvan wrote: > > > > > > > Do not evaluate numbers. > > > > Check for != "=" is needed not to mess with invalid default arguments > > > > or their types (without it I get "const Bar& bar = =" when Bar is not > > > > defined) > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we than instead check that error case? > > > > > > I don't know the proper way to do that :) I also don't know the full amount > > of errors that might cause such behavior. > > You can suggest the solution if you have some idea. Current one is safe > > because we just ignore any case that causes empty default string. > > > Taking your example "const Bar& bar = =" when Bar is not defined: > What happens now? Will it be "const Bar& bar ="? I argue that is not better > than "const Bar& bar = =". > Btw, can you add tests? I think that will make it easier to see what's > actually happening. It will be just "const Bar& bar" in that case with this patch applied. So it is better than both "const Bar& bar =" and "const Bar& bar = =" :) About tests - I agree that it's nice to have them. Can I find something similar in the current test set (as an example) and where is it better to put my tests? https://reviews.llvm.org/D33644 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
