aaron.ballman added a comment. In D65912#1621898 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912#1621898>, @ZaMaZaN4iK wrote:
> The main reason why I've created this differential - asking to you about > usefulness of this check for clang-tidy. I understand that there are a some > TODO and formatting issues - it's ok for now. > > As far I understand your remarks - you are not against this check so I can > continue my work on this path. Great. I think the idea is a reasonable one, yes. One thing I would be interested in knowing is how often the check behaves when run over some large, real-world code bases. Does it catch any true positives? Does it have false positives? > Let's discuss about some open questions: > > 1. Should we support C language and <math.h> header file? I think - yes, it's > quite easy to implement. I think so, yes. > 1. Should we support converting to Boost.Constants? I don't think so. Perhaps as a follow-up patch, if someone was interested in doing the work. > 1. In header file instead of defining math constants directly should we use > them from <cmath> as much as possible? Yes, but you should probably ignore system header files so that you don't flag implementations providing their own sets of constants. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65912 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
