olologin wrote: >it sounds like the goal is somewhat less about clang-tidy checks and more >about running code transformations more easily. Original goal was to have just clang-tidy checks. We use it on our CI to guard main branch from people accidentally merging prohibited stuff. If CI informs devs their PR is bad - they are smart enough to follow the guidelines and fix their problem themselves without relying on automatic transformers. Or to use "NOLINT" as a way to override checks. Extending this functionality with transformers is optional and can be done later, if someone is willing.
Also, just my opinion: I cannot force people into merging this PR, but if it does not break anything and if nobody has significant concerns - I don't see any reason in slowing it down and postponing the merge, because the feature is already implemented and the time is spent. This feature will obviously find its users. You can see a lot of public repos (last time I saw it in Firefox) extending clang-tidy with their simple custom checks, some of them are on the level of "Let's not allow people to use `LoadLibraryEx` directly). Also, it is a bit unclear when RFC is considered "popular enough". 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
