aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107294#2920477 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294#2920477>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D107294#2920355 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294#2920355>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> The usual community viewpoint on off-by-default diagnostics is that they're >> generally low value and not something that users will manually enable. > > I was under the impression many warnings weren't enabled by default? We certainly have some! My understanding is that many of those were added before we realized most people don't actually enable off-by-default warnings, so it's only "recently" (within the past 5-10 years) that we've pushed back more consistently on off-by-default diagnostics (and even then, we still allow them sometimes; `-Wfallthrough` is a good example of that). >> I think this functionality is better handled by clang-tidy > > Ack. I've not touched clang-tidy yet; how different do you expect the code to > look to what I've got right now? Because you're doing this at the AST node level, I would expect it to be pretty easy. If you want to do it within preprocessor expressions (or other places where the information isn't in the AST node), it's still doable but might be a bit more complex. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
