aaron.ballman added a comment. In D59402#1516421 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402#1516421>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> I guess you're referring to "[fix-it hints] should only be used when it’s > very likely they match the user’s intent". Also, we're not attempting to recover from the error, which is a good point that @thakis raised. aka, if you apply the fix-it, you should also treat the declaration as though it were declared `static`. > When turning on the warning on an existing code base, I think that `static` > is almost always right. But when writing new code with the warning active, it > might indeed not be the right thing. It could be that the declaration has > been forgotten, or it has a typo. We wouldn't want users to apply `static` > blindly, so a note explaining when it is appropriate does actually make a lot > of sense. Perhaps I can also detect if this is in a header and not emit the > note then. (Or emit a note suggesting `inline`.) > > @aaron.ballman Would moving the fix-it to a note alleviate your concerns? Yes, it would -- you also wouldn't have to attempt the recovery in this case. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59402 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
