aaron.ballman added a comment. In D61288#1486034 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61288#1486034>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> I am not familiar with clang-tidy’s codebase and I personally prefer good > compiler warnings than dependency on another tool (clang-tidy). I mean the > cases when diagnostic check is easy to do in the compiler. > > And in semaexpr we have all we need and it is simple to do it. > > But if majority of reviewers disagree with compiler warning, I will close > this revision. While it is easy to do in the compiler frontend, I am not yet convinced it's really worth having there compared to clang-tidy. FWIW, I'd be happy seeing it in clang-tidy. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61288/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61288 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
