[llvm-dev] Why duplicate "protected:" in SmallVector.h, StringMap.h?

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Nope, don't believe it's any intentional coding style - I wouldn't worry
about preserving them when making changes, but I probably wouldn't go out
of my way to remove them all either.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Yaron Keren via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> In SmallVector.h:
>
> class SmallVectorBase {
> *protected:*
>   void *BeginX, *EndX, *CapacityX;
>
> *protected:*
>   SmallVectorBase(void *FirstEl, size_t Size)
>     : BeginX(FirstEl), EndX(FirstEl), CapacityX((char*)FirstEl+Size) {}
>
>
> In StringMap.h:
>
> class StringMapImpl {
> *protected:*
>   // Array of NumBuckets pointers to entries, null pointers are holes.
>   // TheTable[NumBuckets] contains a sentinel value for easy iteration.
> Followed
>   // by an array of the actual hash values as unsigned integers.
>   StringMapEntryBase **TheTable;
>   unsigned NumBuckets;
>   unsigned NumItems;
>   unsigned NumTombstones;
>   unsigned ItemSize;
>
> *protected:*
>   explicit StringMapImpl(unsigned itemSize)
>       : TheTable(nullptr),
>
> is the second "protected:" a coding style that should be preserved?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160428/b63f5ee1/attachment.html>