OikawaKirie added a comment.
In D91844#2408897 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91844#2408897>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> Is it possible to split these up into separate patches for unrelated code?
Since these are reported by one static scan, and these reported places cannot
be categorized with others, I choose to submit them in one patch for simplicity
and avoiding spam. If it is necessary to separate them one by one, I will close
this review and start a new one for each of them.
Or, maybe you are thinking of just separating the patch of clang with llvm? If
so, I will start a new review just for the patch of clang and leave the patches
of llvm here.
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp:1346-1353
if (!Ptr) {
// Search in reverse order so that the most-derived type is handled first.
ArrayRef<std::pair<Record*, SMRange>> Bases = Search->getSuperClasses();
for (const auto &Base : llvm::reverse(Bases)) {
if ((Ptr = createArgument(Arg, Attr, Base.first)))
break;
}
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> Can we just add a single assertion here? It looks to me like every caller
> wants a valid return.
Ok, I will add an assertion here (below line 1353) in the new submits, and
remove all other assertions I added in this file together with the checks on
this pointer after the assertion (line 1355 and 1358).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91844/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91844
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
