njames93 added a comment. In D127446#3572491 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127446#3572491>, @carlosgalvezp wrote:
> This sounds like great functionality, surely saving a lot of headaches! Any > reason why we wouldn't want this active by default? I'd personally even go > one step further and make it hard errors - warnings are easy to miss and > ignore - but I can see how it can be problematic for some people. I choose not to as I'd imagine it could would result in duplicated warnings when batch processing using run_clang_tidy over a large project. Also if there's any edge cases, maybe with the static analyser, I wouldn't want those diagnostics triggering by default with no way to silence them. I wouldn't be opposed to the possibility of making on by default after its had some time in the wild. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127446/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127446 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
