hokein added a comment. In D57943#1441129 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57943#1441129>, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> Another alternative we could consider would be collecting these fixes when > producing the clang-tidy diagnostics. > We won't show the diagnostics to the users if they have the check disabled, > but we would stash the ranges and the textual fixes somewhere. > I.e. I'm suggesting to reuse something closer to the mechanism of > diagnostics fix-its, not the code tweak interfaces. > > The advantages are: > > 1. keeping clang-tidy integration in one place, > 2. no extra runs of ast matchers, all tidy checks will run during diagnostics. > > WDYT? Hidden diagnostic is definitely another approach, but it'd require more discussion/work/design. As I mentioned before, it is used for experimental, and I'm not sure this is something we want. I have rebased the branch, and hidden this under the `hidden-features` flag. Let me know if we want to move forward or not. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57943/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57943 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
