On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, David! > > > On May 15, 2013, at 0:37 , David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h?rev=181869&r1=181868&r2=181869&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h Wed May 15 > 02:37:26 2013 > @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ struct ImplicitNullDerefEvent { > struct DefaultBool { > bool val; > DefaultBool() : val(false) {} > - operator bool() const { return val; } > + LLVM_EXPLICIT operator bool() const { return val; } > DefaultBool &operator=(bool b) { val = b; return *this; } > }; > > > I think this one really is supposed to be operator bool() -- it's supposed > to behave like "bool with a default constructor" so that the flags are > default-initialized, and then you should never have to think of it as > anything but bool after that. Although maybe that means it should use > operator bool& instead of operator bool, which declares intent a little > more. > Oh, totally fair point - as you might've guessed I did this mechanically (with sed). I only really gave types a second thought when I found compilation errors at usage sites that looked like they should stay written the way they were. I don't think I came across any compilation errors/callsites that had to be fixed for this type, so I didn't give it any consideration. Feel free to change it back. Maybe add a /* implicit */ comment like we do for deliberately implicit conversion operators. > It's our part of the codebase, so I'm guessing you don't care *that* much, > but do you have an opinion on that? > Yeah, this wasn't a project with any particularly self-centered need, just some general cleanup without much nuance/consideration for specific parts of the codebase, etc. > Jordan > > P.S. I didn't ask Ted about the BlkExprStmt and CFGStmtVisitors yet...I'll > get to it when we're both in the same room. > Sure thing - thanks.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
