Summary:
Noticed during review of D41102.
I'm not sure whether there are any principal reasons why it returns raw owning pointer,
or it is just a old code that was not updated post-C++11.
I'm not too sure what testing i should do, because `check-all` is not error clean here for some reason,
but it does not //appear// asif those failures are related to these changes.
This is clang part.
Clang-tools-extra part is D43780.
Reviewers: klimek, bkramer, alexfh, pcc
Reviewed By: alexfh
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779
llvm-svn: 326201
Summary: It breaks the build for the ASTMatchers
Subscribers: klimek, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13893
llvm-svn: 250827
The patch is generated using this command:
$ tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
work/llvm/tools/clang
To reduce churn, not touching namespaces spanning less than 10 lines.
llvm-svn: 240270
After post-commit review and community discussion, this seems like a
reasonable direction to continue, making ownership semantics explicit in
the source using the type system.
llvm-svn: 215323
This reverts commit r213307.
Reverting to have some on-list discussion/confirmation about the ongoing
direction of smart pointer usage in the LLVM project.
llvm-svn: 213325
(after fixing a bug in MultiplexConsumer I noticed the ownership of the
nested consumers was implemented with raw pointers - so this fixes
that... and follows the source back to its origin pushing unique_ptr
ownership up through there too)
llvm-svn: 213307
Summary:
Gracefully fail to evaluate a constant expression if its type is
unknown, rather than failing an assertion trying to access the type.
Reviewers: klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
CC: chandlerc, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3075
llvm-svn: 203950
Roman Lebedev