In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7639#193443, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7639#192668, @danielmarjamaki wrote: > > > sorry but I am personally skeptic about this checker. > > > > why is the void removed? > > > > it does not cause any wrong behaviour to keep it. > > > > the void is not likely added there by mistake, is it? the developer > > probably wrote it by intention and this checker thinks that the developer > > intentions are wrong.. > > > > how about moving it to clang-modernize? > > > It is a readability check, it isn't designed to detect "wrong" behavior. > (void) is a C-ism and is a holdover from C-style coding. It is completely > redundant and unnecessary in C++. If a developer wants to keep unnecessary > and redundant tokens in their code, then they can turn this check off or not > run it. Agree. Also, we want to migrate clang-modernize transformations to clang-tidy some day (it's an extremely low priority task though). Wrt this check, it might fit better in a new module named "legacy". Not extremely important and definitely not necessary for this patch. What's necessary, is to address my comments (http://reviews.llvm.org/D7639?id=28202#inline-85173 and http://reviews.llvm.org/D7639?id=28202#inline-85176). http://reviews.llvm.org/D7639 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
