11happy wrote: > I'm not fan about this check. For me there is no use case for it. For sure > it's not readability, simply because explicit return is more readable, and > people who do not know that main by default will return 0 may even consider > this check a bug, as why all functions got return but not this. Other issue > is that many projects enable all readability checks, and as this one is > controversial and not common it shouldn't be under readability, more like > misc. There are many things that aren't needed, for example compiler is able > to generate destructor, but still rule of 3/5 require it in some cases to be > done explicitly, same is with return 0, there could be easily a check that > could enforce explicit return in all functions, and that would also be > readability. > > As for the check: > > * wrong name > * wrong category, it should be more a 'misc' for me > * in current form it will catch also 'return 1'; > I would say that if this check had to exists (i still cannot find use case > for it), then it should be configurable to enforce 'return 0' or enforce lack > of 'return 0'. And left configured to an most safe/common approach. What if > someone wanted to do 'return 1', but forget to put return, and compiler > didn't warn.
Sure I will Look into these and will update it accordingly. I added it into readability category as It was mentioned by author on the issue #61957 , also can you please suggest the name that would be more suitable. > The check could be placed under readability-* category. As a new contributor to LLVM, I am willing to take to your guidance and suggestions. Thank you https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77586 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
