idlecode marked an inline comment as done.
idlecode added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/ElseAfterReturnCheck.cpp:28
stmt(forEach(
- ifStmt(hasThen(stmt(
+ ifStmt(unless(hasParent(ifStmt())),
+ hasThen(stmt(
----------------
djasper wrote:
> idlecode wrote:
> > djasper wrote:
> > > I think this now effectively does:
> > >
> > > stmt(forEach(ifStmt(unless(hasParent(ifSttmt())), ...)
> > >
> > > I think that's equivalent to:
> > >
> > > stmt(unless(ifStmt()), forEach(ifStmt(...)))
> > Apparently you are right - does that mean that this matcher actually
> > matches node above ifStmt (and just binds ifStmt)?
> > If so maybe such expression would suffice? (it passes tests)
> > ```
> > Finder->addMatcher( // note lack of stmt(forEach(
> > ifStmt(unless(hasParent(ifStmt())),
> > hasThen(stmt(
> > anyOf(ControlFlowInterruptorMatcher,
> >
> > compoundStmt(has(ControlFlowInterruptorMatcher))))),
> > hasElse(stmt().bind("else")))
> > .bind("if"),
> > this);
> >
> > ```
> >
> > But I'm not sure if this would be any better than your version.
> Yeah. That makes sense to me. The difference is that we would start binding
> ifStmts() that are direct children of declarations. But I don't know whether
> we have excluded those intentionally. Do any tests break if you make this
> change?
I have just ran `make check-clang-tools` on updated source tree - no new
failures. Upload the change?
What do you mean by 'if statement as children of declaration'? (I'm new to
compilers and just curious :) )
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26125
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
