alexfh added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-dynamic-static-initializers.hpp:1 +// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-dynamic-static-initializers %t + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I'm a bit confused. > > 1) Why is this file a .hpp if the check is currently supposed to be C-only? > 2) Why are there no `#include` directives in the test if the check is > supposed to only work on header files? > > As best I can tell, this is a moral equivalent to doing: clang -x c > whatever.h, and so this should be a compilation unit and not a header file. > @alexfh, do you have thoughts there? > Why is this file a .hpp if the check is currently supposed to be C-only? This seems to have been cleared in a different comment: the check is C++-only. > Why are there no #include directives in the test if the check is supposed to > only work on header files? Since the check is using a list of extensions to figure out, if a file is a header, it's not overly important to actually add a separate file that includes this one. And there's a certain benefit in convenience of not doing so (it's nice when CHECK-... and RUN: directives just work). At least one more check - misc-definitions-in-headers - does it the same way. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62829/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62829 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
