JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/TimeSubtractionCheck.cpp:97
+void TimeSubtractionCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
+ const auto *BinOp = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<BinaryOperator>("binop");
+ std::string inverse_name =
----------------
hwright wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > Could you please split this function up into smaller ones. There are three
> > or four distinct cases that are easier to comprehend in isolation.
> The actual bodies of these if-statements are only one or two separate
> statements themselves. Moving those to separate functions seems like it
> would just obfuscate things a bit.
IMHO they are complicated statements and hide what is being done. Wrapping them
in a function with a name that states what is done seems appropriate.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/TimeSubtractionCheck.h:19
+/// Finds and fixes `absl::Time` subtraction expressions to do subtraction
+/// in the Time domain instead of the numeric domain.
+///
----------------
hwright wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > nit: 'Time' domain
> This doesn't refer to a type, but a library system, so it probably isn't
> appropriate to quote it.
>
> (Just has how one wouldn't quote "frequency" when talking about "the
> frequency domain" of a Fourier transform.)
ah true, but then time would be written small i guess.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/abseil-time-subtraction.cpp:12
+
+ d = absl::Hours(absl::ToUnixHours(t) - x);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: perform subtraction in the time
domain [abseil-time-subtraction]
----------------
hwright wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > please add tests where `x` itself is a calculation with different
> > precedence of its operators (multiplication, addition) to ensure these
> > cases are transformed properly as well.
> This doesn't actually matter in this case: `x` will be wrapped in a function
> call.
>
> It does matter in the case where we //unwrap// the first argument (below) and
> I've already got a test which uses multiplication in this case. I've also
> added one for division.
Yes, it should not matter if `x` is an expr itself or just a variable. Thats
why it should be tested its actually true.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58137/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58137
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
