[PATCH] D118370: [clang-tidy] bugprone-signal-handler: Code refactor (NFC)

[Balázs Kéri via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

balazske added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SignalHandlerCheck.cpp:146
+  if (!HandlerDecl->hasBody()) {
+    checkFunction(HandlerDecl, HandlerExpr);
     return;
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> Why do we ignore the return value of `checkFunction` here?
> 
> Also, the name doesn't reveal to me why the result is true
> or false, e.g. it acts like a predicate but its name doesn't ask
> a question.
The function returns if a problem (warning) was found. At the next call site it is used to display additional notes, but here it is not needed. A better name can be `isFunctionValidSignalHandler` but the function checks not only a fact, it generates the warnings too.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SignalHandlerCheck.cpp:151
   CallGraphNode *HandlerNode = CG.getNode(HandlerDecl);
-  // Signal handler can be external but not unsafe, no call graph in this case.
-  if (!HandlerNode)
-    return;
+  assert(HandlerNode &&
+         "Handler has body, should be present in the call graph.");
----------------
There are problems with this approach in C++ code.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D118370/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D118370