JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/nolintnextline.cpp:23
+
+// NOLINTNEXTLINE without-brackets-skip-all, another-check
+class C5 { C5(int i); };
----------------
xgsa wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > Ian confused now. The NOLINTNEXTLINE with incorrect parents should not
> > silence the diagnostic, should it?
> >
> > In my understanding the following line should cause the explicit
> > constructor check to warn. Is that check message missing or did I get
> > something wrong?
> Without parentheses, it works just as `NOLINTNEXTLINE` (i.e. suppresses all
> the diagnostics for line), because it's impossible to distinguish check names
> from user comments after `NOLINTNEXTLINE`:
> ```
> // NOLINTNEXTLINE check-name, another-check
> // NOLINTNEXTLINE Some description, why the suppression is added
> ```
Ah sure, that makes sense.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
