vladimir.plyashkun marked 2 inline comments as done.
vladimir.plyashkun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/hicpp/SignedBitwiseCheck.cpp:23-24
+ : ClangTidyCheck(Name, Context),
+ IgnorePositiveIntegerLiterals(
+ Options.getLocalOrGlobal("IgnorePositiveIntegerLiterals", false)) {}
+
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> vladimir.plyashkun wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > i'm not sure this should look for a global option with such name?
> > I think that this method is common and used in so many inspections.
> > For example this [[
> > https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-inconsistent-declaration-parameter-name.html
> > | check ]] also have option called `IgnoreMacros` which is retrieved in
> > same way (by calling getLocalOrGlobal method)
> I'm very specifically discriminating against
> `"IgnorePositiveIntegerLiterals"` here.
> I know `getLocalOrGlobal()` is widely used, because in those places the same
> flag
> is used in multiple modules with same meaning.
> Is that the case here?
Ok, i agree. Fixed.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/hicpp-signed-bitwise-integer-literals.cpp:19
+ int Int = 30;
+ IResult = Int << 1;
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:13: warning: use of a signed integer operand
with a binary bitwise operator
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> Could you please add `URes << 1` as well? I believe that was problematic in
> the stack-overflow-question, wasn't it?
Yes, sure.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68694/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68694
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
