[PATCH] D77930: [llvm][NFC] Refactor uses of CallSite to CallBase - call promotion

[David Blaikie via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

dblaikie added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/unittests/Transforms/Utils/CallPromotionUtilsTest.cpp:95-98
+  CallBase &CB = *CI;
+  ASSERT_FALSE(CB.getCalledFunction());
+  bool IsPromoted = tryPromoteCall(CB);
   EXPECT_FALSE(IsPromoted);
----------------
mtrofin wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > Can probably drop the intermediate CB variable now (& just write CI->getCalledFunction() and tryPromoteCall(*CI))
> > 
> > (similarly below)
> Done.
> 
> Also, seems like this file would benefit from ASSERT_TRUE(pointer) -> ASSERT_NE(pointer, nullptr) (same for EXPECT_) - or is this not particularly followed?
When writing non-gtest boolean tests, I favor "if (X)" or "if (!X)" but I'm not sure what's most common across LLVM.

For gtests - yeah, I think using the most descriptive test is good from a gtest error message perspective - I don't know of any particular convention there, but I wouldn't object to/would encourage changes to go in that direction (of using the most descriptive tests).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D77930/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D77930