lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#780053, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#779143, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#778729, @malcolm.parsons wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#777001, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > > > Which makes sense, since in AST, they are nested: > > > > > > > > > They're not nested in the formatting, so I don't think it makes sense. > > > > > > As usual, all the meaningful review happens post-factum :) > > > I didn't get an email about this change until it was pushed. > > > So, it should warn on: > > ... > > but should not on what you/I posted in the previous comment. > > Yes. > > > The difference seems to be some kind of implicit `CompoundStmt` added by > > `IfStmt`? > > CompoundStmt represents the `{}`. > > > Assuming that is the case, maybe this is as simple as checking whether this > > `CompoundStmt` is implicit or not? > > My prototype of this feature used `ifStmt(stmt().bind("if"), > unless(hasParent(ifStmt(hasElse(equalsBoundNode("if"))))))`. The fix should ideally be fully contained in the `TraverseStmt()`, and should not be noticeably slower. >> Best to move open a new bug about this. I'll see what can be done. (that should have been "Best to open a new bug about this. I'll see what can be done.") > Do you need me to report a bug? Yes, and assign it to me, if possible. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
