kimgr added a subscriber: kimgr. kimgr added a comment. Cool check, I like how it pays attention to indentation!
I found some minor doc nits, see inline. ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-suspicious-semicolon.rst:8-9 @@ +7,4 @@ +the code. More specifically, it looks for `if`, `while`, `for` and `for-range` +statements whose body is a single semicolon, and then analyzes the +context of the code (e.g. indentation) in an attempt to determine whether that +is intentional. ---------------- "context" looks like it would fit on the wrapped line. ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-suspicious-semicolon.rst:20 @@ +19,3 @@ +Here the body of the `if` statement consists of only the semicolon at the end of +the first line, and `x` will be increased regardless of the condition. + ---------------- incremented? ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-suspicious-semicolon.rst:29 @@ +28,3 @@ +As a result of this code, `processLine()` will only be called once, when the +`while` loop with the empty body exits with `line == NULL`. The identation of +the code indicates the intention of the programmer. ---------------- Typo: identation ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-suspicious-semicolon.rst:71 @@ +70,3 @@ + +In this case the checker will assume that you know what you are doing, and will +not raise a warning. ---------------- There's been some preference for "check" over "checker" lately. ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-suspicious-semicolon.cpp:88 @@ +87,3 @@ + char c = 'b'; + char * s = "a"; + if (s == "(" || s != "'" || c == '"') { ---------------- Weird pointer alignment is a little distracting here, better stick with LLVM convention and attach it to `s`? http://reviews.llvm.org/D16535 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits