ArcsinX added a comment.
In D134379#3806664 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134379#3806664>, @sammccall wrote:
> Is test.h meaningfully used in that example?
> Yes, the code is going to fail to compile without it, but it seems like the
> "spirit" of IWYU would say to delete both the include and the using directive.
Yes, in this example both should be removed, but from IDE user point of view, I
expect warning about unused `using namespace ...`, and after it will be
removed, warning about unused include can appear.
Also:
- I think that in unsure cases, we should keep includes and avoid code with
errors
- IWYU tool doesn't report that include can be removed
> My concern about marking it used is that namespaces are typically redeclared
> in *every* header, and this effectively disables the feature on large swaths
> of code:
>
> // foo.h
> namespace myproj { void foo(); }
>
> // bar.h
> namespace myproj { void bar(); }
>
> // main.cc
> #include "foo.h"
> #include "bar.h" // not meaningfully used
>
> using namespace myproj;
> int main() {
> foo();
> }
In this case I don't see a difference with other declaration types. E.g.
function
// foo.h
void foo();
// bar.h
void foo();
// main.cc
#include "foo.h"
#include "bar.h"
int main() {
foo();
}
both foo.h and bar.h contains prototype of foo(), but bar.h can be removed
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134379/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134379
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
