ffrankies marked an inline comment as done.
ffrankies added a comment.
@Eugene.Zelenko @aaron.ballman Are there any more changes that need to be made
to this check or comments that need to be addressed?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/altera/IdDependentBackwardBranchCheck.cpp:200
+ if (isa<DoStmt>(Loop))
+ return DO_LOOP; // loop_type = 0;
+ else if (isa<WhileStmt>(Loop))
----------------
Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> Is loop ID is not enough? Why does comment with numerical code used? Same
> below.
Removed the comment with numerical code (I simply added it to avoid having to
check the header file to see their numerical value). The LoopType is used in
the diagnostics to select and emit the correct loop type as part of the
diagnostic message, e.g.:
```
diag(CondExpr->getBeginLoc(),
"backward branch (%select{do|while|for}0 loop) is ID-dependent due "
"to ID function call and may cause performance degradation")
<< Type;
```
I'm assuming the loop ID is a unique object identifier, so I don't think it'll
serve the same purpose.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70094/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70094
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
