In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#176182, @danielmarjamaki wrote:
> > 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?
Well, there are many convenient ways to do this. You can use Google Docs, for
example.
================
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;
----------------
danielmarjamaki wrote:
> 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?
Why does the buffer need to be padded with something when you compare iterators
without dereferencing them? I didn't find any violation of the preconditions
for random access iterators
(http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concept/RandomAccessIterator).
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
