On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks reasonable to me - enough that I'm willing to sign off on it and > anyone else can object/discuss in post-commit review. > > > ================ > Comment at: unittests/Tooling/RecursiveASTVisitorTest.cpp:531 > @@ +530,3 @@ > + bool VisitCXXRecordDecl(CXXRecordDecl* record) { > + if (record->isLambda() && !record->isImplicit()) { > + SawNonImplicitLambdaClass = true; > ---------------- > Unnecessary curlies (not sure if that's the local convention here, but not > the LLVM convention generally)
Removed. (There are some others in this file, but meh.) > & because I'm far too terse, I would, depending on the day, write this as "x > |= y" rather than "if (y) x = true". But I don't really claim this is better. My brain also can't help but try to find The Perfect Way To Write This, but if you're OK with what's there I think it's down in the noise. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
