================
@@ -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
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
