labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp:803-804
+ (const_sect_name == g_CODE_sect_name))) {
+ return eSectionTypeCode;
+ } else if (sect.flags & llvm::COFF::IMAGE_SCN_CNT_INITIALIZED_DATA &&
+ ((const_sect_name == g_data_sect_name) ||
----------------
mstorsjo wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > Now that this is a `return`, you don't need the `else` as per
> > <http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-else-after-a-return>.
> Ok. What about the individual if/return/else/return within the if statements?
> Is it preferred to keep them as is here, e.g.
>
> ```
> if (condition) {
> if (othercondition)
> return eSectionTypeZeroFill;
> else
> return eSectionTypeData;
> }
> ```
>
> Or to skip the inner else in the same way?
> ```
> if (condition) {
> if (othercondition)
> return eSectionTypeZeroFill;
> return eSectionTypeData;
> }
> ```
>
> (Ternary operators for keeping just a single return here would be bad for
> readability IMO, as some conditions aren't entirely trivial.)
Strictly speaking, those should not use `else` either, but I don't think that's
super important here, so you can leave it as they are now if you want. I'd be
fine with a ternary operator too, as those conditions are not _that_
complicated...
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70778/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70778
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
