aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-redundant-branch-condition.cpp:1092
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: redundant condition 'isSet'
[bugprone-redundant-branch-condition]
+ // CHECK-FIXES: {{isSet}}
+ }
----------------
zinovy.nis wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > zinovy.nis wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > There's not a whole lot of context for FileCheck to determine if it's
> > > > been correctly applied or not (same below) -- for instance, won't this
> > > > pass even if no changes are applied because FileCheck is still going to
> > > > find `isSet` in the file?
> > > Thanks. Fixed.
> > Maybe it's just early in the morning for me, but... I was expecting the
> > transformation to be:
> > ```
> > if (RetT::Test(isSet).Ok() && isSet) {
> > if (RetT::Test(isSet).Ok() && isSet) {
> > }
> > }
> > ```
> > turns into
> > ```
> > if (RetT::Test(isSet).Ok() && isSet) {
> > }
> > ```
> > Why does it remove the `&& isSet` instead? That seems like it's changing
> > the logic here from `if (true && false)` to `if (true)`.
> IMO it's correct.
> `isSet` cannot change its value between `if`s while `RetT::Test(isSet).Ok()`
> can.
> So we don't need to re-evaluate `isSet` and need to re-evaluate
> `RetT::Test(isSet).Ok()` only.
>
>
>
> > That seems like it's changing the logic here from if (true && false) to if
> > (true).
>
>
> As I understand only the second `if` is transformed.
Does this only trigger as a redundant branch condition if the definition of
`RetT::Test()` is available? Because `Test()` takes a `bool&` so it sure seems
like `isSet` could be modified between the branches if the definition isn't
found because it's being passed as a non-const reference to `Test()`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91037/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91037
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
