Summary:
The idea is that the code here isn't written, so doesn't indicate a bug.
Similar to code expanded from macros.
This means the warning no longer fires on this code:
for (auto C : collection) {
process(C);
return;
}
handleEmptyCollection();
Unclear whether this is more often a bug or not in practice, I think it's a
reasonable idiom in some cases.
Either way, if we want to warn on "loop that doesn't loop", I think it should be
a separate warning, and catch `while(1) break;`
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov, ioeric
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58134
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@354102
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
// a for/for-range loop. This is the block that contains
// the increment code.
if (const Stmt *LoopTarget = B->getLoopTarget()) {
+ // The increment on a foreach statement is not written.
+ if (isa<CXXForRangeStmt>(LoopTarget))
+ return;
+
SourceLocation Loc = LoopTarget->getBeginLoc();
SourceRange R1(Loc, Loc), R2;
}
}
+void test4() {
+ for (char c : "abc") // no-warning
+ break;
+}
+
// PR 6130 - Don't warn about bogus unreachable code with throw's and
// temporary objects.
class PR6130 {