kadircet added a comment.
I also agree with the typo correction verdict. In theory there'll be two cases:
- typo correction helps, in which case it'll be obvious from the warning
itself.
- typo correction doesn't help, because the option doesn't exist at all, we'll
be just showing a random option. I don't think how this'll be helpful.
So I don't think this is providing much of a value compared to the extra logic.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TidyProvider.cpp:291
+ static void *call() {
+ return new tidy::NamesAndOptions(tidy::getAllChecksAndOptions(false));
+ }
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> it seems strange that clang-tidy provides this API to query what checks are
> linked in, but it constructs an expensive object every time rather than just
> creating a static one once and returning a reference to it. (i.e. the
> memoization is on the caller side)
> Should we fix that API instead?
+1
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
