Cool. I'll focus on ArrayRef with a side of StringRef if I see them. I guess now the patch gets reviewed and added (or since it's fairly trivial, maybe not? Still learning here.)
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Christopher Jones < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks a lot, Sean. I'll keep that in mind like you suggested earlier. >> >> Is my patch good? Or do I need to do more? : ) >> >> > It looks fine. Keeping changes small and focused is good. That's a big > part of LLVM development style: small, focused changes, with good > justification that makes them easy to review. (the other major pillar of > LLVM development style is excellent testing, but changes like these with no > functionality change don't need tests). > > I'd also like to emphasize that the ArrayRef-ization is really a *much* > more important project. Every time you see pointer+length being passed as > arguments, you can basically indiscriminately replace it with ArrayRef (or > MutableArrayRef if it needs to be mutable). It's a huge win in virtually > every case. > > -- Sean Silva >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
