MaskRay added a comment. In D139919#3991242 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919#3991242>, @carlosgalvezp wrote:
> AFAIK it's preferred to use the LLVM types instead of the Standard types: > >> When both C++ and the LLVM support libraries provide similar functionality, >> and there isn’t a specific reason to favor the C++ implementation, it is >> generally preferable to use the LLVM library > > https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#c-standard-library This should be read with a grain of salt. For example, it apparently doesn't apply to things are being deprecated. `llvm::Optional` is being actively removed and many of its functions are deprecated for eventual removal. A large portion of the other components in llvm-project have migrated. See https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716/14 ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyCheck.h:457 - } // namespace tidy } // namespace clang ---------------- drop whitespace change use line-based clang-format to prevent updating unrelated lines. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
