ioeric added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/clang-move/ClangMoveTests.cpp:278
+ const char Code[] = "#include \"foo.h\"\nint A::f() { return 0; }";
+ Spec.Names = {std::string("A")};
+ Spec.OldHeader = "foo.h";
----------------
hokein wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > Maybe just insert or push back?
> I think using `insert` or `push_back` doesn't make the code as clear as
> initialization here. Code readers might pull up the source file to find the
> code for the initialized value of this variable.
But you have only one element here right? With those, you wouldn't need
std::string(...) I guess.
================
Comment at: unittests/clang-move/ClangMoveTests.cpp:299
+ "using Int=int;\nclass A {\npublic:\n int f();\n};",
+ "namespace a {}\nusing namespace a;\nclass A {\npublic:\n int f();\n};",
+ "class B {};\nclass A {\npublic:\n int f();\n};",
----------------
hokein wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > I think using namespace decl should also be ignored?
> This case should rarely happen in source code, as many code styles prohibit
> `using-namespace` decls in headers.
> I'd like to keep the current behavior because the using-namespace decl will
> populate the namespace in all the files which include this header. Ignoring
> it might break a lot of code.
But if you are moving the whole file, using namespace would also be moved so
that code would not break?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26236
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
