dblaikie added a comment. In D80531#2353268 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80531#2353268>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D80531#2352944 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80531#2352944>, @kkleine wrote: > >> @dblaikie sorry for the late feedback. The `LLVM_ENABLE_WERROR:BOOL` will >> "Stop and fail the build, if a compiler warning is triggered. Defaults to >> OFF." I wonder if any other test fails from clang tidy because. My test >> explicitly checks that a warning is issued (e.g. `// CHECK-MESSAGES-DEFAULT: >> :[[@LINE-2]]:3: warning: prefer deleting`) and when the `LLVM_ENABLE_WERROR` >> propagates to this piece, it will indeed fail the build. But I wonder why >> this doesn't happen to the other clang-tidy checks. @njames93 >> @Eugene.Zelenko any ideas? > > The reason WERROR causes this to fail is the tests are generating a warning > `Wextra-semi` for the `;` that appear after each macro usage in the class. > clang-tidy would ignore this diagnostic as its set-up to ignore all warnings > from clang. > However when Werror is set, that warning is promoted to an error, and > clang-tidy will emit all errors, regardless of their origin. > This causes there to be extra diagnostics in the tests, though only in the > tests where you invoke clang-tidy directly. Not sure why that obeys > `LLVM_ENABLE_WERROR` likewise not sure why check_clang_tidy doesn't obey it. > Anyway the simple fix is to just remove the `;` after the macro usages in the > class Oh, neat - thanks for identifying that! Probably be good for someone to figure out how to make the tests independent of the LLVM build flags like LLVM_ENABLE_WERROR in general. In D80531#2353314 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80531#2353314>, @kkleine wrote: > @njames93 I could do that but the original Macros had were defined without a > semicolon at the end and one had to add it manually. See this revision in > which I replaced some occurrences of `DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN`: > eaebcbc67926a18befaa297f1778edde63baec9b > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGeaebcbc67926a18befaa297f1778edde63baec9b>. What > do you suggest? Keep the semicolon to more closely match the original macros > or remove it to make the test happy? Alternatively, the DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN macros could have a trivial implementation that makes the trailing semicolon not "extra", like the real macro? (I guess it could be any function declaration "void stub()" for instance) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80531/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80531 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
