malcolm.parsons added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#779143, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#778729, @malcolm.parsons wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942#777001, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > Which makes sense, since in AST, they are nested: > > > > > > They're not nested in the formatting, so I don't think it makes sense. > > > As usual, all the meaningful review happens post-factum :) I didn't get an email about this change until it was pushed. > So, it should warn on: > ... > but should not on what you/I posted in the previous comment. Yes. > The difference seems to be some kind of implicit `CompoundStmt` added by > `IfStmt`? CompoundStmt represents the `{}`. > Assuming that is the case, maybe this is as simple as checking whether this > `CompoundStmt` is implicit or not? My prototype of this feature used `ifStmt(stmt().bind("if"), unless(hasParent(ifStmt(hasElse(equalsBoundNode("if"))))))`. > Best to move open a new bug about this. I'll see what can be done. Do you need me to report a bug? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D32942 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
