On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Marshall Clow via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> mclow.lists added a comment. > > I ran this on LLVM + clang, and it changed calls in 61 files. The changed > LLVM codebase compiled successfully, and passed all the tests. > > Re: @dblaikie's comment, I'd rather call such a beast `llvm::swap`, Strikes me as a little subtle, but I don't find it fundamentally objectionable. > and it would have to go into a header file that everyone already includes. > Fair - difficult to do fixits that add includes. And while we do have a few headers that nearly everyone includes, they're probably not /everywhere/ and it may not be appropriate to put this utility in them anyway. Perhaps we can just, as a rule, ignore the general fixit hint and fix it 'our' way? (or could we (do we?) have a lower bar for clang-tidy fixit hints that would allow us to just fixit to this function and let the user realize they need to add a missing include?) > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D15121 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
