aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71846#1800401 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71846#1800401>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D71846#1800381 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71846#1800381>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > In D71846#1800344 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71846#1800344>, @njames93 > > wrote: > > > > > I'm in two minds about issuing a warning when scope restrictions prevent > > > a fix. Do you think creating an option to enable or disable emitting > > > warnings for cases where the scope prevents a fix would be a good idea? > > > > > > It's not uncommon for fixits to only be generated under specific > > circumstances, so I'm wondering what your concern is with warning when we > > can't provide a fixit? The cases I am thinking about all seem reasonable to > > diagnose (are true positives) without fixing, but maybe you have different > > circumstances in mind. > > > Right now an issue is raised for every else after return flag, but not all > else after return flags can be fixed due to declaration statements and scope > issues. My suggestion is that you can choose to warn about those cases or > not. For example a developer may want else after return for when they need to > limit the scope and getting a warning for it may be undesirable. Okay, I can see the value in having an option for that -- especially given that silencing the diagnostic would add `// NOLINT` noise to the code. Do you think the option should default to diagnosing all cases, even ones without a fixit? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71846/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71846 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
