LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/modernize-redundant-void-arg.cpp:561 +#define return_t(T) T +return_t(void) func(void); +// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: redundant void argument list in function declaration ---------------- LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > Can you also add a test for: > > > > ``` > > > > void func(return_t(void)); > > > > ``` > > > `:-)` > > > > > > What are you suggesting the result should be? Honestly, looking at that, > > > I'm not sure myself `:)` > > > > > > IMO, if I saw this in a code review, I would flag it because you're using > > > a macro called "return type" to specify the type of an argument. > > LoL, yeah, the name `return_t` would certainly be novel to use in a > > parameter list, but what I was hoping to test is whether we try to fix the > > use of the macro within the parameter list or not. I *think* it probably > > makes sense to issue the diagnostic, but I don't think it makes sense to > > try to fix it because the macro could be defined differently for different > > configurations. But the diagnostic is silenced as well as the fix-it, I > > wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over it. > Well it could conceivably be used to declare a function pointer argument like > this: > > `void func(return_t(void) (*fp)(void));` > > In that case, my expectation is that the check would fix the void arg, but > not the arg to the macro. OK, that was a good idea to add the test I described above because it failed `:)`, so let me improve the check some more. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116425/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116425 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
