On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Manuel Klimek <kli...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Manuel Klimek <kli...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> lg
>>>
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: clang-tidy/llvm/NamespaceCommentCheck.cpp:66
>>> @@ +65,3 @@
>>> + Token Tok;
>>> + while (Lexer::getRawToken(Loc, Tok, Sources,
>>> Result.Context->getLangOpts())) {
>>> + Loc = Loc.getLocWithOffset(1);
>>> ----------------
>>> Can you add a comment explaining why it's ok to retry on failure with an
>>> incremented location?
>>>
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: clang-tidy/llvm/NamespaceCommentCheck.cpp:73
>>> @@ +72,3 @@
>>> + bool NextTokenIsOnSameLine = Sources.getSpellingLineNumber(Loc) ==
>>> EndLine;
>>> + bool NeedLineBreak = NextTokenIsOnSameLine && Tok.isNot(tok::eof);
>>> +
>>> ----------------
>>> Can you explain why we need this? (I'd have expected the fix-it to not
>>> change the number of newlines, thus just inserting the comment between the
>>> } and the newline).
>>>
>>
>> Am I missing where you added a comment for this?
>>
>
> Should be here:
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D3825?vs=9577&id=9579&whitespace=ignore-all#toc
>
Ah, sorry, there's no comment for this. I've answered your question on the
Phab only.
Should I add a comment?
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D3825
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Alexander Kornienko | Software Engineer | ale...@google.com | Google
Germany, Munich
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
