aaron.ballman added a comment. In D96082#2566984 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96082#2566984>, @steveire wrote:
> In D96082#2565339 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96082#2565339>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> A somewhat similar check that would be interesting is a function that >> returns the same value on all control paths > > I think we shouldn't try to design a new, different check in the comments of > this MR. I wasn't. I was giving an example of what is similar and I would find acceptable so that the code author has more data from which to make decisions about their patch. > I think it would be better to finalize what to do with this one. > > Request further work to also change expressions in all affected TUs? Or close? I don't think requesting further work would solve any of my concerns short of making a rather different check, so my preference is to close. In D96082#2567143 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96082#2567143>, @LukasHanel wrote: > As a follow-up to this checker, clang -Wdocumentation does not understand the > `@retval` command. > I was thinking of adding a new clang-tidy checker for this to verify/complete > the list of documented return values. > In this case where the documentation does not say `@retval 0 always`, than I > will come back to the checker here, suggest make the function void or add the > "always" to the text :). > The work with the useless-return-value was a study towards this new @retval > checker. That's an interesting idea -- we don't have any clang-tidy checks related to documentation comments currently, but the doxygen-style comments are the only form of comment to be retained in the AST. So it seems plausible to write clang-tidy checkers for documentation comments. However, you should know that there are limitations to this given that clang-tidy works most effectively with ASTs and not the user's original source -- it's trivially easy to lose some or all of the AST nodes for the comments if the formatting gets mucked up: https://godbolt.org/z/nWcMsM So it is possible that it's easier to do this work in the frontend instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96082/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96082 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
