steveire added a comment.
I implemented something like this recently too. The code I was trying to
refactor was something like
auto ii = 0;
for (ii = 0; ii < thing.size(); ++ii)
{
// code
}
// code
for (ii = 0; ii < thing.size(); ++ii)
{
// code
}
// code
for (ii = 0; ii < thing.size(); ++ii)
{
// code
}
ie, the variable was used repeatedly, but always initialized in the loop.
I also had code like
auto ii = 0;
for (ii = 0; ii < thing.size(); ++ii)
{
// code
}
ii = getNumber();
doSomething(ii);
ie, the next statement outside the loop was an assignment, so I could just
change it to
for (auto ii = 0; ii < thing.size(); ++ii)
{
// code
}
auto ii = getNumber();
doSomething(ii);
You don't necessarily have to handle these cases in the initial version of this
check, but you could consider them in the future.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100092/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100092
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
