> The main concern is the noisiness of the check: it makes sense to look at a
> bigger sample of results and see whether the warning should be silenced in
> more cases.
Do you have a suggestion how I share the results?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroParenthesesCheck.cpp:77
@@ +76,3 @@
+ !Tok.is(tok::minus) && (TI + 1) != TE &&
+ (TI + 1)->is(tok::numeric_constant) && (TI + 2) == TE) {
+ return;
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> `TI + 2 == TE` implies `TI + 1 != TE`. I'd also put it next to `TI ==
> MI->tokens_begin()`.
Yes that is implied. But are you sure it's not UB? I wanted to avoid undefined
behaviour when creating an out-of-bounds pointer (calculating TI+2 without
checking TI+1). is the buffer always padded with extra elements after TE?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
