NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. I appreciate the cleanup in general and any work on taint analysis in particular, thanks!
In D54918#1332089 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54918#1332089>, @Szelethus wrote: > I vaguely remember @george.karpenkov having many great points against it -- > please don't commit until he can take a look :) Essentially, it messes with git blame, and also causes a lot of merge conflicts for downstream developers (we have a few of those). But if you plan to work on this checker actively anyway, please feel free to start with formatting. Here's the relevant quote from the guidelines <https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#introduction>: > Our long term goal is for the entire codebase to follow the convention, but > we explicitly *do not* want patches that do large-scale reformatting of > existing code. On the other hand, it is reasonable to rename the methods of a > class if you’re about to change it in some other way. Just do the > reformatting as a separate commit from the functionality change. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54918/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54918 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
