[llvm-dev] [RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
David Chisnall via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 5 05:49:49 PDT 2019
On 05/04/2019 09:13, via llvm-dev wrote:
> I think "isa_nonnull" would read fine too. To me, the extra "and" makes
> the ordering more of an issue.
At the risk of bikeshedding:
To me, isa_nonnull sounds as if the caller is guaranteeing that the
argument is nonnull. I don't think I've seen it in LLVM, but elsewhere
I've come across a convention of adding nonnull variants of functions
that skip null checks and pass the non-null restriction to the caller.
I wonder if the better solution is to rename isa to isa_nonnull and
introduce a new isa that can take a null argument. If these have the
correct nullability annotations then anyone building with clang should
get a warning if they use the wrong one...
More information about the llvm-dev