[PATCH] StringRef-izing some of clang-check

Christopher Jones chrisjones.lambda at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 21:51:23 PDT 2013

Cool.  I'll focus on ArrayRef with a side of StringRef if I see them.  I
guess now the patch gets reviewed and added (or since it's fairly trivial,
maybe not?  Still learning here.)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Christopher Jones <
> chrisjones.lambda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks a lot, Sean.  I'll keep that in mind like you suggested earlier.
>> Is my patch good?  Or do I need to do more? : )
> It looks fine. Keeping changes small and focused is good. That's a big
> part of LLVM development style: small, focused changes, with good
> justification that makes them easy to review. (the other major pillar of
> LLVM development style is excellent testing, but changes like these with no
> functionality change don't need tests).
> I'd also like to emphasize that the ArrayRef-ization is really a *much*
> more important project. Every time you see pointer+length being passed as
> arguments, you can basically indiscriminately replace it with ArrayRef (or
> MutableArrayRef if it needs to be mutable). It's a huge win in virtually
> every case.
> -- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130426/92f9b649/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list