mirror of
https://github.com/zeek/zeek.git
synced 2025-10-14 12:38:20 +00:00
Use .contains() instead of .find() or .count()
This commit is contained in:
parent
d20550f553
commit
b592b6c998
68 changed files with 201 additions and 207 deletions
19
src/Type.cc
19
src/Type.cc
|
@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static bool is_supported_index_type(const TypePtr& t, const char** tname, std::u
|
|||
|
||||
// Handle recursive calls as good: If they turn out not
|
||||
// to be, that should've been discovered further down.
|
||||
if ( seen.count(t) > 0 )
|
||||
if ( seen.contains(t) )
|
||||
return true;
|
||||
|
||||
seen.insert(t);
|
||||
|
@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ class RecordType::CreationInitsOptimizer : public detail::TraversalCallback {
|
|||
public:
|
||||
detail::TraversalCode PreTypedef(const detail::ID* id) override {
|
||||
const auto& t = id->GetType();
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.count(t) > 0 )
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.contains(t) )
|
||||
return detail::TC_ABORTSTMT;
|
||||
|
||||
analyzed_types.emplace(t);
|
||||
|
@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ void RecordType::AddField(unsigned int field, const TypeDecl* td) {
|
|||
// We defer error-checking until here so that we can keep deferred_inits
|
||||
// and managed_fields correctly tracking the associated fields.
|
||||
|
||||
if ( field_ids.count(td->id) != 0 ) {
|
||||
if ( field_ids.contains(td->id) ) {
|
||||
reporter->Error("duplicate field '%s' found in record definition", td->id);
|
||||
deferred_inits.push_back(nullptr);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
@ -1168,7 +1168,7 @@ void RecordType::AddField(unsigned int field, const TypeDecl* td) {
|
|||
deferred_inits.push_back(std::move(init));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
bool RecordType::HasField(const char* field) const { return field_ids.count(field) != 0; }
|
||||
bool RecordType::HasField(const char* field) const { return field_ids.contains(field); }
|
||||
|
||||
ValPtr RecordType::FieldDefault(int field) const {
|
||||
const TypeDecl* td = FieldDecl(field);
|
||||
|
@ -1654,8 +1654,7 @@ void EnumType::CheckAndAddName(const string& module_name, const char* name, zeek
|
|||
// we can define an enum both in a *.bif and *.zeek for avoiding
|
||||
// cyclic dependencies.
|
||||
if ( ! id->IsEnumConst() || (id->HasVal() && val != id->GetVal()->AsEnum()) ||
|
||||
GetName() != id->GetType()->GetName() ||
|
||||
(names.find(fullname) != names.end() && names[fullname] != val) ) {
|
||||
GetName() != id->GetType()->GetName() || (names.contains(fullname) && names[fullname] != val) ) {
|
||||
auto cl = detail::GetCurrentLocation();
|
||||
reporter->PushLocation(&cl, id->GetLocationInfo());
|
||||
reporter->Error("conflicting definition of enum value '%s' in type '%s'", fullname.data(),
|
||||
|
@ -1668,7 +1667,7 @@ void EnumType::CheckAndAddName(const string& module_name, const char* name, zeek
|
|||
|
||||
AddNameInternal(module_name, name, val, is_export);
|
||||
|
||||
if ( vals.find(val) == vals.end() )
|
||||
if ( ! vals.contains(val) )
|
||||
vals[val] = make_intrusive<EnumVal>(IntrusivePtr{NewRef{}, this}, val);
|
||||
|
||||
if ( ! id->HasVal() )
|
||||
|
@ -1694,7 +1693,7 @@ void EnumType::AddNameInternal(const string& full_name, zeek_int_t val) {
|
|||
names[full_name] = val;
|
||||
rev_names[val] = full_name;
|
||||
|
||||
if ( vals.find(val) == vals.end() )
|
||||
if ( ! vals.contains(val) )
|
||||
vals[val] = make_intrusive<EnumVal>(IntrusivePtr{NewRef{}, this}, val);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -2031,11 +2030,11 @@ bool same_type(const Type& arg_t1, const Type& arg_t2, bool is_init, bool match_
|
|||
// If we get to here, then we're dealing with a type with
|
||||
// subtypes, and thus potentially recursive.
|
||||
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.count(t1) > 0 || analyzed_types.count(t2) > 0 ) {
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.contains(t1) || analyzed_types.contains(t2) ) {
|
||||
// We've analyzed at least one of the types previously.
|
||||
// Avoid infinite recursion.
|
||||
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.count(t1) > 0 && analyzed_types.count(t2) > 0 )
|
||||
if ( analyzed_types.contains(t1) && analyzed_types.contains(t2) )
|
||||
// We've analyzed them both. In theory, this
|
||||
// could happen while the types are still different.
|
||||
// Checking for that is a pain - we could do so
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue