paulhdk wrote: Hi all!
I've requested reviews from everyone who has reviewed the check so far. Would be awesome if we could get this merged soon! Attaching my previous comments with unresolved questions below. > Based on what @leunam99 wrote above, the following questions are still > unresolved: > > * It is still unclear to us how templates should be addressed when suggesting > fixes. For instance, what should happen in this case: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/98483ae1581c9a12fc7b4c8b5b64330db8292c29/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-bounds-avoid-unchecked-container-accesses.cpp?plain=1#L176-L184 > > * Should we worry about the cases where the subscript operator can have 0 > parameters or more than 1 parameter in C++23? At the moment we’re accounting > for the case where there is no parameter, but don't explicitly handle > multiple parameters. > > * As @carlosgalvezp noted, there are still open comments. I’ve resolved them > or responded to those that we’re uncertain about. @PiotrZSL, it would be > great if you could have another look! Thank you! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95220 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
