xazax.hun added a comment.
Overall, I like the structure of this patch and the references back to the
standard. But every time we compare type pointers, they might compare inequal
when one of the types have sugar on it while the other does not. Please review
all of those comparisons to see where do we need to get the canonical types
instead, and add some tests with type aliases.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/ExceptionAnalyzer.cpp:66
+ CXXBasePath &) {
+ if (BS->getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl() == BaseClass &&
+ BS->getAccessSpecifier() == AS_public) {
----------------
Will this work with typedefs and other sugar or do you need to get the
canonical type here? I do not see test coverage for that scenario.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/ExceptionAnalyzer.cpp:84
+
+QualType getPointeeOrArrayElementQualType(QualType T) {
+ if (T->isAnyPointerType())
----------------
What about `Type::getPointeeOrArrayElementType`?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135495/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135495
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
