JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/hicpp/MultiwayPathsCoveredCheck.cpp:85
+ diag(ElseIfWithoutElse->getLocStart(),
+ "potential uncovered codepath found; add an ending else branch");
+ return;
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of the 'found', can we just omit it? The same goes for the
> other diags.
Agree. The messages are better without 'found'.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/hicpp/MultiwayPathsCoveredCheck.cpp:96
+ // Only the default branch (we explicitly matched for default!) exists.
+ if (CaseCount == 1) {
+ diag(SwitchWithDefault->getLocStart(),
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> Why not a switch?
I intent to check if all cases are explicitly covered.
In the testcases there is one switch with all numbers explicitly written,
meaning there is no need to add a default branch.
This would allow further
```
else if (CaseCount == MaximumPossibleCases) { /* No warning */ }
```
path which is not modable with `switch`.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/hicpp/MultiwayPathsCoveredCheck.cpp:152
+ // Should be written as an IfStmt.
+ if (CaseCount == 1) {
+ diag(SwitchWithoutDefault->getLocStart(), "switch stmt with only one "
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> I'm aware that the message and fixme are different, but since the structure
> is so similar to the handling of the other switch case, I wonder if there is
> any chance we could extract the common parts?
I try to get something shorter.
Maybe
```
if(CaseCount == 1 && MatchedSwitch) {}
else if(CaseCount == 1 && MatchedElseIf) {}
```
?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37808
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
