whisperity added a comment. In D69560#1890026 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560#1890026>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D69560#1889925 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560#1889925>, @vingeldal wrote: > > > Doesn't clang-tidy exclude warnings from system headers by default though? > > > Third-party SDKs are not always brought in as system headers, unfortunately. > Even ignoring system and third-party headers, having two parameters of the > same type is a natural occurrence for some data types (like `bool`) where it > is going to be extremely hard to tell whether they're related or unrelated > parameters. I have specifically applied the matcher in this patch in a way that it only matches for the **definition** of the function symbol. If you never create a build database out of the third party "package" and run the check on the third-party library's source code, you will not get a warning for these. While it's //somewhat// wonky that an "interface" rule is matching the "implementation" nodes, it is a natural restriction to only warn the user about things they have a reliable way of fixing. Hopefully, they will not forget to align their headers after potentially fixing the implementation code. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
