njames93 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:629 Priority = std::make_tuple(Begin, Type, -End, -ErrorSize, ErrorId); - else + return; + case ET_Insert: ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I'd drop these `return` statements and the unreachable, below. The switch is > fully-covered, so we'll get a diagnostic if any new enumerations are added > and we forget to update this switch. I'd still need a `break` anyway, but yes the unreachable probably isn't required ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:703 + Apply[Event.ErrorId] = false; + continue; + case Event::ET_Insert: ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Similar here with `continue` and the unreachable. As this is in a loop, I'm torn whether using `break` makes it less readable. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82898/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82898 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits