In D96082#2566984, @steveire wrote:

In D96082#2565339, @aaron.ballman wrote:

A somewhat similar check that would be interesting is a function that returns the same value on all control paths

I think we shouldn't try to design a new, different check in the comments of this MR.

I think it would be better to finalize what to do with this one.

Request further work to also change expressions in all affected TUs? Or close?

Handle the case of a global variable being the "return value"

In D96082#2549943, @steveire wrote:

In D96082#2545807, @LukasHanel wrote:

Hi, thanks for discussing my proposal!

• Usefulness of the fix-it's

I agree with @njames93 that this check is dangerous. Even if you extended it to port callExprs, that would only work in translation units which can see the definition.

Are you saying I should just remove the fix-its altogether?
Or, put them under some option that is off by default?

Hi, thanks for discussing my proposal!
Although I think it can stand as is, I was looking for feedback:

• Is the name good?
• Is the readability group good? Or better in misc?
• too slow, too fast?
• More precision required?
• Usefulness of the fix-it's
• Should I add options?

Thanks for the review!

Address review comments, fix C++ unit tests

Add the real changes