alexfh accepted this revision. alexfh added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#949732, @xgsa wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#949687, @alexfh wrote: > > > How are unknown check names handled? More specifically: will the `// > > NOLINT(runtime/explicit)` comment disable all clang-tidy checks or none? > > > None. If comment is syntactically correct and contains parenthesis, it works > only for the known checks inside. > > Still, I don't think it worth mentioning all the corner cases in > documentation to keep things simple. Documenting interaction with cpplint-style NOLINT categories would potentially save time to the users and clang-tidy maintainers (at least for codebases using Google style and cpplint). Fine for a follow-up. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#953888, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#953291, @xgsa wrote: > > > @aaron.ballman, sorry for my insistence, but it seems all the comments are > > fixed and the patch is ready for commit or am I missing something? Could > > you please commit it on my behalf, as I don't have rights to do that? > > > The check now LGTM, but I am going to wait to commit in case @alexfh has > concerns regarding unknown check names. > > FWIW, I think we should do something about unknown check names in NOLINT > comments, but that can be done as a follow-up patch. If we're ignoring the > comment, we might want to diagnose that fact so users have an idea what's > going on. IIUC, cpplint can output a diagnostic about unknown categories inside NOLINT and about NOLINT directives that happen on lines where no warning is emitted. Both would be useful in clang-tidy, IMO. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
