On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:39 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Author: dblaikie >> Date: Mon Mar 23 14:39:19 2015 >> New Revision: 232999 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=232999&view=rev >> Log: >> Refactor: Simplify boolean expresssions in lib/Lex >> >> Simplify boolean expressions using `true` and `false` with `clang-tidy` >> >> Patch by Richard Thomson. >> >> Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8531 >> >> Modified: >> cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp >> >> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp >> URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp?rev=232999&r1=232998&r2=232999&view=diff >> >> ============================================================================== >> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp Mon Mar 23 14:39:19 2015 >> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static unsigned ProcessCharEscape(const >> int CharVal = llvm::hexDigitValue(ThisTokBuf[0]); >> if (CharVal == -1) break; >> // About to shift out a digit? >> - Overflow |= (ResultChar & 0xF0000000) ? true : false; >> + Overflow |= ResultChar & 0xF0000000; >> > > Is this actually simpler? This line now reads like it's conditionally > setting bits 28-31 of Overflow, whereas previously it was clear that > Overflow is a bool without needing any additional context. I think > > if (ResultChar & 0xF0000000) Overflow = true; > > is better than either the old or new code. > Agreed - r233006 > > ResultChar <<= 4; >> ResultChar |= CharVal; >> } >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
