r232999 - Refactor: Simplify boolean expresssions in lib/Lex

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Author: dblaikie
> Date: Mon Mar 23 14:39:19 2015
> New Revision: 232999
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=232999&view=rev
> Log:
> Refactor: Simplify boolean expresssions in lib/Lex
>
> Simplify boolean expressions using `true` and `false` with `clang-tidy`
>
> Patch by Richard Thomson.
>
> Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8531
>
> Modified:
>     cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp
>
> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp
> URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp?rev=232999&r1=232998&r2=232999&view=diff
>
> ==============================================================================
> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp Mon Mar 23 14:39:19 2015
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static unsigned ProcessCharEscape(const
>        int CharVal = llvm::hexDigitValue(ThisTokBuf[0]);
>        if (CharVal == -1) break;
>        // About to shift out a digit?
> -      Overflow |= (ResultChar & 0xF0000000) ? true : false;
> +      Overflow |= ResultChar & 0xF0000000;
>

Is this actually simpler? This line now reads like it's conditionally
setting bits 28-31 of Overflow, whereas previously it was clear that
Overflow is a bool without needing any additional context. I think

  if (ResultChar & 0xF0000000) Overflow = true;

is better than either the old or new code.

       ResultChar <<= 4;
>        ResultChar |= CharVal;
>      }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150323/ecb3153e/attachment.html>