# Extra Clang Tools 21.1.6 documentation

## clang-tidy - bugprone-branch-clone

# bugprone-branch-clone

Checks for repeated branches in `if/else if/else` chains, consecutive repeated branches in `switch` statements and identical true and false branches in conditional operators.

    if (test_value(x)) {
      y++;
      do_something(x, y);
    } else {
      y++;
      do_something(x, y);
    }

In this simple example (which could arise e.g. as a copy-paste error) the `then` and `else` branches are identical and the code is equivalent the following shorter and cleaner code:

    test_value(x); // can be omitted unless it has side effects
    y++;
    do_something(x, y);

If this is the intended behavior, then there is no reason to use a conditional statement; otherwise the issue can be solved by fixing the branch that is handled incorrectly.

The check detects repeated branches in longer `if/else if/else` chains where it would be even harder to notice the problem.

The check also detects repeated inner and outer `if` statements that may be a result of a copy-paste error. This check cannot currently detect identical inner and outer `if` statements if code is between the `if` conditions. An example is as follows.

    void test_warn_inner_if_1(int x) {
      if (x == 1) {    // warns, if with identical inner if
        if (x == 1)    // inner if is here
          ;
      if (x == 1) {    // does not warn, cannot detect
        int y = x;
        if (x == 1)
          ;
      }
    }

In `switch` statements the check only reports repeated branches when they are consecutive, because it is relatively common that the `case:` labels have some natural ordering and rearranging them would decrease the readability of the code. For example:

    switch (ch) {
    case 'a':
      return 10;
    case 'A':
      return 10;
    case 'b':
      return 11;
    case 'B':
      return 11;
    default:
      return 10;
    }

Here the check reports that the `'a'` and `'A'` branches are identical (and that the `'b'` and `'B'` branches are also identical), but does not report that the `default:` branch is also identical to the first two branches. If this is indeed the correct behavior, then it could be implemented as:

    switch (ch) {
    case 'a':
    case 'A':
      return 10;
    case 'b':
    case 'B':
      return 11;
    default:
      return 10;
    }

Here the check does not warn for the repeated `return 10;`, which is good if we want to preserve that `'a'` is before `'b'` and `default:` is the last branch.

Switch cases marked with the `[[fallthrough]]` attribute are ignored.

Finally, the check also examines conditional operators and reports code like:

    return test_value(x) ? x : x;

Unlike if statements, the check does not detect chains of conditional operators.

Note: This check also reports situations where branches become identical only after preprocessing.