On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Anna Zaks wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John McCall wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Jordan Rose wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 19:15 , Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Jordan Rose wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp
>>>>> URL: 
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp?rev=162156&r1=162155&r2=162156&view=diff
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp (original)
>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngine.cpp Fri Aug 17 19:30:20 
>>>>> 2012
>>>>> @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@
>>>>>  case Stmt::ObjCAtThrowStmtClass: {
>>>>>    // FIXME: This is not complete.  We basically treat @throw as
>>>>>    // an abort.
>>>>> -      Bldr.generateNode(S, Pred, Pred->getState());
>>>>> +      Bldr.generateNode(S, Pred, Pred->getState(), /*IsSink=*/true);
>>>> Please remove the C style comment.
>>>> You can mention that we are generating a sink in a comment or better yet 
>>>> add another API to the node builder spelling out what we do:
>>>> "Bldr.generateSink"
>>> 
>>> This is a common way to annotate otherwise cryptic parameters in Clang, 
>>> though admittedly most of the uses in the analyzer specifically were 
>>> introduced by me. I don't understand why it's an issue, at least right now. 
>>> (I agree that in this case a "generateSink" method would be a little 
>>> clearer.)
>> 
>> FWIW, I generally find myself wanting to use binary enums for most of
>> these things eventually.  That would be nicer if clang were using C++11,
>> of course.
>> 
> 
> Using the enum or multiple methods is a better solution than the comment. 
> Also, LLVM Coding Standard makes no exception for using C style comments for 
> dealing with cryptic arguments:
> http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#comment-formatting

That's definitely just a missing case in the coding standard;  this is a 
widely-used idiom, even if I do generally feel that there are better 
alternatives.

John.

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to