jdennett marked 2 inline comments as done. jdennett added a comment. Thanks for the review. I've address your comments, and will check over the (presumed-final) diff before submitting.
================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst:558 +typically the basic `CHECK` forms (`CHECK-MESSAGES` and `CHECK-FIXES`) +are sufficient for matcher tests. Note that the `FileCheck` +documentation mostly assumes the default prefix (`CHECK`), and hence ---------------- alexfh wrote: > I'm not sure the term "matcher tests" is used anywhere else in our > documentation. And it doesn't seem obvious to me either (if it refers to AST > matchers, then it's just an implementation detail of clang-tidy checks, if it > refers to the check patterns, then it's not a commonly used term for those > either). I don't know what would be a good short replacement, maybe > "clang-tidy lit tests" or just "clang-tidy tests". I went with clang-tidy tests. (The "matcher test" references are because I was thinking about some new matchers such as `argumentsAre(arg1, ..., argn)` at the same time, and didn't manage to do a complete context switch when working on these docs. Thanks for catching that.) https://reviews.llvm.org/D28189 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
