LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-redundant-return.cpp:21-24
@@ +20,6 @@
+
+void g(int i) {
+ if (i < 0) {
+ return;
+ }
+ if (i < 10) {
----------------
kimgr wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > kimgr wrote:
> > > What happens to guard clauses invoking void functions?
> > >
> > > void h() {
> > > }
> > >
> > > void g(int i) {
> > > if(i < 0) {
> > > return h();
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > Nothing because the last statement of the `compoundStmt` that is the
> > function body is an `if` statement and not a `return` statement.
> >
> > That is exactly why lines 21-24 are in the test suite :).
> Ah, I hadn't understood the mechanics of the check. I read the docs, and now
> I do! Don't mind me :-)
I had thought about doing a deeper analysis of the control flow to look for
such cases, but I will leave that for later.
For instance, the following code may plausibly appear in a code base:
```
void f() {
do_stuff();
{
lock l(mutex);
do_locked_stuff();
return;
}
}
```
I haven't tried this on this patch, but I suspect it would do nothing; I will
add some examples of these more complicated cases to the test suite to show
that the implementation doesn't yet handle more advanced flow analysis.
In this case, the `return` is similarly redundant, as well as a `return` as the
last statement of an `if` as you mentioned. However, I wanted to start with
something simple and get feedback on that before attempting to do more advanced
cases.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16259
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
