hokein added a comment. In D140532#4012879 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140532#4012879>, @sammccall wrote:
> Yeah, good call. Do you mind if I first use this as a trigger to start a > thread about this style rule on discourse, though? I've been meaning to, it > came up in a review recently. sure, please go ahead. (I found that these warnings are annoying when editing the llvm code file). > I think there's a fair chance of changing the policy from "require static" to > "allow either" or "require anon namespace", and having the issue "live" in > clang-tidy might make for a more engaged discussion. Yeah, the code style says `require static`, I think in practice we allow either. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140532/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140532 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
