[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70778: [LLDB] [PECOFF] Factorize mapping section names to types using StringSwitch. NFCI.

[Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

labath added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp:803-804
+       (const_sect_name == g_CODE_sect_name))) {
+    return eSectionTypeCode;
+  } else if (sect.flags & llvm::COFF::IMAGE_SCN_CNT_INITIALIZED_DATA &&
+             ((const_sect_name == g_data_sect_name) ||
----------------
mstorsjo wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > Now that this is a `return`, you don't need the `else` as per <http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-else-after-a-return>.
> Ok. What about the individual if/return/else/return within the if statements? Is it preferred to keep them as is here, e.g.
> 
> ```
> if (condition) {
>   if (othercondition)
>     return eSectionTypeZeroFill;
>   else
>     return eSectionTypeData;
> }
> ```
> 
> Or to skip the inner else in the same way?
> ```
> if (condition) {
>   if (othercondition)
>     return eSectionTypeZeroFill;
>   return eSectionTypeData;
> }
> ```
> 
> (Ternary operators for keeping just a single return here would be bad for readability IMO, as some conditions aren't entirely trivial.)
Strictly speaking, those should not use `else` either, but I don't think that's super important here, so you can leave it as they are now if you want. I'd be fine with a ternary operator too, as those conditions are not _that_ complicated...


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D70778/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D70778