arphaman marked 5 inline comments as done.
arphaman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/SymbolName.h:19
+namespace clang {
+namespace tooling {
+
----------------
hokein wrote:
> An off-topic thought: currently we put everything into `clang::tooling`, I
> think we might need a separate namespace e.g. `clang::tooling::refactoring`
> in the future?
That would be nice, I agree. Don't think it's in scope for this patch though,
maybe for https://reviews.llvm.org/D36075?
================
Comment at: lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/SymbolOccurrences.cpp:17
+
+SymbolOccurrence::SymbolOccurrence(const SymbolName &Name, OccurrenceKind Kind,
+ ArrayRef<SourceLocation> Locations)
----------------
hokein wrote:
> Shouldn't the definition be in clang::tooling namespace?
That's not necessary because of the `using namespace` directives above. Only
standalone functions have to be defined in namespaces, out-of-line member
function definitions don't have to follow that rule because they already have
the class qualifier.
================
Comment at: lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/USRLocFinder.cpp:398
Visitor.TraverseDecl(Decl);
- return Visitor.getLocationsFound();
+ return std::move(Visitor.getOccurrences());
}
----------------
hokein wrote:
> I think just returning `Visitor.getOccurrences()` is sufficient -- compiler
> can handle it well, also using std::move would prevent copy elision.
I'm returning by non-const reference from `getOccurrences`, so the compiler
copies by default. I have to move either here or return by value from
`getOccurrences` and move there. We also have warnings for redundant
`std::move`, and they don't fire here.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36156
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
