xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/VirtualNearMissCheck.cpp:54-55
@@ -53,16 +53,4 @@
// Both types must be pointers or references to classes.
- if (const auto *DerivedPT = DerivedReturnTy->getAs<PointerType>()) {
- if (const auto *BasePT = BaseReturnTy->getAs<PointerType>()) {
- DTy = DerivedPT->getPointeeType();
- BTy = BasePT->getPointeeType();
- }
- } else if (const auto *DerivedRT = DerivedReturnTy->getAs<ReferenceType>()) {
- if (const auto *BaseRT = BaseReturnTy->getAs<ReferenceType>()) {
- DTy = DerivedRT->getPointeeType();
- BTy = BaseRT->getPointeeType();
- }
- }
-
- // The return types aren't either both pointers or references to a class
type.
- if (DTy.isNull())
+ if ((!BaseReturnTy->isPointerType() || !DerivedReturnTy->isPointerType()) &&
+ (!BaseReturnTy->isReferenceType() ||
!DerivedReturnTy->isReferenceType()))
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > It takes a non-trivial effort to understand the equivalence of the comment
> > and the condition. I think, pulling the negations one level up would make
> > the condition read easier:
> > ```
> > if (!(BaseReturnTy->isPointerType() && DerivedReturnTy->isPointerType()) &&
> > !(BaseReturnTy->isReferenceType() &&
> > DerivedReturnTy->isReferenceType()))
> > return;
> > ```
> >
> > Also, please move the definitions of the variables `BTy`, `DTy`, `BRD`,
> > `DRD` after this `if` and merge them with their initialization.
> IMO, it would be even better would be to extract a predicate function with an
> intention-revealing name.
I could not come up with a good name, so I left it as it is. If you have
something in mind, feel free to tell me.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16179
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
