AaronBallman wrote: > > Hi, I tried to explain everything here: > > Thanks, I missed that! For RFCs it's preferable to use > [Discourse](https://discourse.llvm.org/c/clang/clang-tidy/71), as there is a > lot less traffic and can more easily catch the eyes of relevant people. I did > not see much discussion in the original RFC though, which may hint that not > many people were aware.
Yeah, that Discourse thread is really too recent to know whether the community wants the extension or not. I think the RFC should run longer before we move forward. > My understanding is that the goal is to avoid rebuilding clang-tidy/plugins > to be able to add new simple checks via .clang-tidy file. I see the benefit > of this, however I'm not sure it justifies introducing this dependency from > `clang-tidy` to `clang-query` in the build system. +1; it sounds like the goal is somewhat less about clang-tidy checks and more about running code transformations more easily. clang-query doesn't really lend itself to "find this pattern, replace with this other pattern", and clang-tidy requires enough boilerplate for checks that it's a heavy-handed solution. It might make more sense to design a tool specific for code transformations -- something that can be easily run over a compile_commands.json file, for example. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
