> > Here are some results: >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BykPmWrCOxt2YTdOU0Y3M1RmdGM/view?usp=sharing > > > Nice, but the results are from a different check: misc-macro-parentheses. I see.. I dont have the results anymore. I am rerunning the checker and will probably post results tomorrow. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroRepeatedSideEffectsCheck.cpp:48 @@ +47,3 @@ + + // Don't write warnings for macros defined in system headers + if (SM.isInSystemHeader(MI->getDefinitionLoc())) ---------------- alexfh wrote: > nit: Please add a trailing period. Will be fixed in next patch ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroRepeatedSideEffectsCheck.cpp:77 @@ +76,3 @@ + + // Check for sideeffects in the argument expansions. + for (unsigned ArgumentIndex = 0; ArgumentIndex < NumToks; ++ArgumentIndex) { ---------------- alexfh wrote: > s/sideeffects/side effects/ Will be fixed in next patch ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroRepeatedSideEffectsCheck.cpp:54 @@ +53,3 @@ + int CountInMacro = 0; + for (TokIter TI = MI->tokens_begin(), TE = MI->tokens_end(); TI != TE; + ++TI) { ---------------- alexfh wrote: > danielmarjamaki wrote: > > alexfh wrote: > > > ditto > > Impossible. > > > > Fortunately I have a patch pending (http://reviews.llvm.org/D9079) that > > makes it possible to do this. If it gets the OK and I can apply it I will > > of course use the range-based for loop here too. > > > Phabricator says that you have committed that patch 10 days ago: > > > Closed by commit rL236975: Refactor MacroInfo so range for loops can be > > used to iterate its tokens. (authored by danielmarjamaki) Yes I will of course use this. I totally agree range for loops are better. http://reviews.llvm.org/D9496 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
