vingeldal accepted this revision.
vingeldal added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/misc/use-anonymous-namespace.cpp:46-48
+// OK
+static const int v8{123};
+static constexpr int v9{123};
----------------
Is it really the best behavior to allow these? If I got the rationale right we
don't warn about this because const and constexpr have implicit internal
linkage anyway, so static doesn't make a difference, right?
Reading the documentation for this check I gather static would probably have
been deprecated if it wasn't for the fact that deprecation would have broken
compatibility with C. So, if we drop the static keyword here we still get the
behavior we want, without a confusing keyword we would rather get rid of if we
could, while keeping compatibility with C.
I'm thinking it could be better to just discourage from using static for cases
like this.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139113/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139113
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
