etienneb added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19586#417063, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19586#417053, @etienneb wrote: > > > The rule also apply for statements in a same compound: > > > > { > > statement1(); > > statement2(); > > statement3(); > > > > > > But this can be a further improvement. > > > I believe this might be an intentional omission, since this can not imply > semantic problems. But I agree that, this addition makes sense. Fair enough. This checker is in 'readbility', so I don't see why not. But, feel free to postpone. Or let someone else take it. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19586 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
