aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-redundant-return.cpp:21-24
@@ +20,6 @@
+
+void g(int i) {
+ if (i < 0) {
+ return;
+ }
+ if (i < 10) {
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> kimgr wrote:
> > LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > > kimgr wrote:
> > > > What happens to guard clauses invoking void functions?
> > > >
> > > > void h() {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > void g(int i) {
> > > > if(i < 0) {
> > > > return h();
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > Nothing because the last statement of the `compoundStmt` that is the
> > > function body is an `if` statement and not a `return` statement.
> > >
> > > That is exactly why lines 21-24 are in the test suite :).
> > Ah, I hadn't understood the mechanics of the check. I read the docs, and
> > now I do! Don't mind me :-)
> I had thought about doing a deeper analysis of the control flow to look for
> such cases, but I will leave that for later.
>
> For instance, the following code may plausibly appear in a code base:
>
> ```
> void f() {
> do_stuff();
> {
> lock l(mutex);
> do_locked_stuff();
> return;
> }
> }
> ```
>
> I haven't tried this on this patch, but I suspect it would do nothing; I will
> add some examples of these more complicated cases to the test suite to show
> that the implementation doesn't yet handle more advanced flow analysis.
>
> In this case, the `return` is similarly redundant, as well as a `return` as
> the last statement of an `if` as you mentioned. However, I wanted to start
> with something simple and get feedback on that before attempting to do more
> advanced cases.
>
I think that starting simple and expanding later is the right approach.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16259
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
