xazax.hun added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18264#379092, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Also, it's quite common for older code (pre C++11) to return void and make > these functions private (with no definition) as an early form of deleting the > operator. This checker will not warn on private methods. About EDSLs, I think they are not the common case. In case it is important, it might make sense to make this configurable, but I think the minority of the C++ projects have EDSLs so it make more sense to warn on those cases by default. What do you think? http://reviews.llvm.org/D18264 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
