whisperity added a comment. I have developed a related check in D69560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560>. That one considers types, but is an //interface rule// checker, and does not consider (any) potential call sites. Moreover, it does not consider "swaps" that happen across a function call, only, as the name implies, //adjacent// similar-type ranges.
Maybe one could lift the "is-similar-type", or rather, "is-accidentally-mixable-type" related ruling to some common location, and use type similarity as a precondition gate in the reports of this check? ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-redundant-expression.rst:18 -Example: +Examples: ---------------- This seems to be an unrelated diff. ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-redundant-expression.cpp:20 if (X - X) return 1; - // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:9: warning: both side of operator are equivalent [misc-redundant-expression] + // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:9: warning: both sides of operator are equivalent [misc-redundant-expression] if (X / X) return 1; ---------------- This entire file seems to be unrelated to the discussion at hand, perhaps a rebase went sideways? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
