Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. May be this check belongs to `bugprone` module?
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:75 + + Finds complex conditions using <, >, <=, and >= that have no mathematical + meaning. ---------------- Please enclose comparison operators in double back-ticks. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-complex-conditions.rst:6 + +Detects conditions that have no mathematical meaing. + ---------------- Please synchronize with statement in Release Notes. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-complex-conditions.rst:8 + +It's possible to write an expression as (x <= y <= z), which has no meaning. +This expression is parsed as ((x <= y) x<= z). A compare returns a boolean ---------------- Please enclose statements examples and 0/1 in double back-ticks. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-complex-conditions.rst:44 + +This check does not include a fixit since it's not reasonable for the checker +to guess at the programmer's intention. ---------------- fix-it, check. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84898/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84898 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
