LegalizeAdulthood marked 8 inline comments as done.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantReturnCheck.cpp:24
@@ +23,3 @@
+ functionDecl(isDefinition(), returns(asString("void")),
+ has(compoundStmt(hasAnySubstatement(returnStmt()))))
+ .bind("fn"),
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Would be best to restrict this to a return statement that has no
> > > expression if we don't want to diagnose this:
> > > ```
> > > void g();
> > >
> > > void f() {
> > > return g();
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > Either way, it would be good to have a test that ensures this isn't
> > > mangled.
> > How about transforming this odd looking duck into
> >
> > ```
> > void g();
> >
> > void f() {
> > g();
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > ?
> I think in the context of this check, that would be fine.
For now I have opted to simply ignore such odd ducks.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-redundant-return.cpp:1
@@ +1,2 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s readability-redundant-return %t
+
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> Please add tests with macros and templates that ensure:
> * no replacements in macro bodies
> * correct replacements in macro arguments (that are not inside another
> macro's body)
> * replacements in template bodies with multiple instantiations are applied
> only once (adding `unless(isInTemplateInstantiation())` filter to the matcher
> is a usual way to handle this).
When I added template test cases, I wasn't sure how to write a test case for
what you requested. I wrote test code that multiply instantiated a template
and only see my check triggering on the template body as written in the code.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16259
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
