[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D122912: Simplify ArchSpec::IsFullySpecifiedTriple() (NFC)

[Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

JDevlieghere added a comment.

LGTM if the answer to both my questions is "yes".



================
Comment at: lldb/source/Utility/ArchSpec.cpp:1399
 bool ArchSpec::IsFullySpecifiedTriple() const {
-  const auto &user_specified_triple = GetTriple();
-
-  bool user_triple_fully_specified = false;
-
-  if ((user_specified_triple.getOS() != llvm::Triple::UnknownOS) ||
-      TripleOSWasSpecified()) {
-    if ((user_specified_triple.getVendor() != llvm::Triple::UnknownVendor) ||
-        TripleVendorWasSpecified()) {
-      const unsigned unspecified = 0;
-      if (!user_specified_triple.isOSDarwin() ||
-          user_specified_triple.getOSMajorVersion() != unspecified) {
-        user_triple_fully_specified = true;
-      }
-    }
-  }
+  if (!TripleOSWasSpecified())
+    return false;
----------------
Are you sure that `TripleOSWasSpecified() == user_specified_triple.getOS() != llvm::Triple::UnknownOS`. Was the check in the original code redundant? Looking at the implementation

```
bool TripleOSWasSpecified() const { return !m_triple.getOSName().empty(); }
```

I guess this is identical? But when dealing with triples it's probably worth double checking. 


================
Comment at: lldb/source/Utility/ArchSpec.cpp:1402
+
+  if (!TripleVendorWasSpecified())
+    return false;
----------------
Same for the vendor.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D122912/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122912