aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantReturnCheck.cpp:24
@@ +23,3 @@
+ functionDecl(isDefinition(), returns(asString("void")),
+ has(compoundStmt(hasAnySubstatement(returnStmt()))))
+ .bind("fn"),
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Would be best to restrict this to a return statement that has no expression
> > if we don't want to diagnose this:
> > ```
> > void g();
> >
> > void f() {
> > return g();
> > }
> > ```
> > Either way, it would be good to have a test that ensures this isn't mangled.
> How about transforming this odd looking duck into
>
> ```
> void g();
>
> void f() {
> g();
> }
> ```
>
> ?
I think in the context of this check, that would be fine.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16259
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
