aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/clang/lib/ExtractAPI/ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>2022-08-19 15:51:53 -0400
committerAaron Ballman <aaron@aaronballman.com>2022-08-19 15:53:19 -0400
commitcda093681bad901e64d0f6898d15121ab49cb074 (patch)
tree0f0973bccc2176739e1183b0df47291698ee32ba /clang/lib/ExtractAPI/ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp
parente412bac9125a806d147f4f545dd057fac0b4a8f0 (diff)
downloadllvm-cda093681bad901e64d0f6898d15121ab49cb074.zip
llvm-cda093681bad901e64d0f6898d15121ab49cb074.tar.gz
llvm-cda093681bad901e64d0f6898d15121ab49cb074.tar.bz2
Update coding standards for constexpr if statements; NFC
We currently suggest that users not use an else clause after a return statement in a prior if branch. e.g., if (foo) return 1; else // Should remove this else clause return 10; however, this suggestion is incorrect for a constexpr if statement because one of the two branches will be a discarded statement and thus can impact template instantiation behavior. This updates the coding standard to make it clear that it's okay to have a return after an else in a constexpr if statement. I think this is an NFC change to the intent of the rule, which is why I've not started an RFC for the changes. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132232
Diffstat (limited to 'clang/lib/ExtractAPI/ExtractAPIConsumer.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions