balazske added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SignalHandlerCheck.cpp:146
+ if (!HandlerDecl->hasBody()) {
+ checkFunction(HandlerDecl, HandlerExpr);
return;
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> Why do we ignore the return value of `checkFunction` here?
>
> Also, the name doesn't reveal to me why the result is true
> or false, e.g. it acts like a predicate but its name doesn't ask
> a question.
The function returns if a problem (warning) was found. At the next call site it
is used to display additional notes, but here it is not needed. A better name
can be `isFunctionValidSignalHandler` but the function checks not only a fact,
it generates the warnings too.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SignalHandlerCheck.cpp:151
CallGraphNode *HandlerNode = CG.getNode(HandlerDecl);
- // Signal handler can be external but not unsafe, no call graph in this case.
- if (!HandlerNode)
- return;
+ assert(HandlerNode &&
+ "Handler has body, should be present in the call graph.");
----------------
There are problems with this approach in C++ code.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118370/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118370
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
