diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp')
| -rw-r--r-- | clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp | 6 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp index 870bf769..640bdd0 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp @@ -9749,7 +9749,7 @@ static bool EvaluateArrayNewConstructExpr(EvalInfo &Info, LValue &This, // Return true iff the given array filler may depend on the element index. static bool MaybeElementDependentArrayFiller(const Expr *FillerExpr) { - // For now, just whitelist non-class value-initialization and initialization + // For now, just allow non-class value-initialization and initialization // lists comprised of them. if (isa<ImplicitValueInitExpr>(FillerExpr)) return false; @@ -10615,9 +10615,9 @@ static bool isUserWritingOffTheEnd(const ASTContext &Ctx, const LValue &LVal) { // the array at the end was flexible, or if it had 0 or 1 elements. This // broke some common standard library extensions (PR30346), but was // otherwise seemingly fine. It may be useful to reintroduce this behavior - // with some sort of whitelist. OTOH, it seems that GCC is always + // with some sort of list. OTOH, it seems that GCC is always // conservative with the last element in structs (if it's an array), so our - // current behavior is more compatible than a whitelisting approach would + // current behavior is more compatible than an explicit list approach would // be. return LVal.InvalidBase && Designator.Entries.size() == Designator.MostDerivedPathLength && |