Clang tidy cleanup #276
Clang tidy cleanup #276
Conversation
cgzones
force-pushed
the
clang_tidy_cleanup
branch
from
0025788
to
4e84151
Compare
src/main.c
Outdated
| @@ -86,10 +86,12 @@ static void usage(void) | |||
|
|
|||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #define WARN_ON_INVALID_CHECK_ID(id, desc)\ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I the do {} while(0) trick seems tolerable when the macro isn't already a block, but I'm not really clear why it adds value here rather than just increasing the indent. What exactly is clang-tidy upset about?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not a clang-tidy lint, but while looking at the empty statements warnings I also looked for macros with control flow logic to protect them against potential dangling-else problems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't using the
if (condition) {
code
}
style instead of
if(condition)
code
already protect against dangling else problems?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then I think my preference would be to drop this commit. I'd love to take the rest of the PR if you want to push a version dropping this commit.
Not really relevant for single-threaded selint, but pleases clang-tidy.
Needed for size_t and strrchr(3) while processing with a LSP.
Drop unnecessary OOM check.
cgzones
force-pushed
the
clang_tidy_cleanup
branch
from
4e84151
to
91f3587
Compare
|
Merged, thanks! |
No description provided.