tonyelewis added a comment.
Thank you very much for coming back to this and for bringing the changes up to
date. I still think this would be really valuable.
> Right now it will flag template definitions in source files, Is this good or
> bad behaviour?
Do you mean that both of the following w
tonyelewis added a comment.
> Support for checking types should be either opt-in(or opt-out) but never
> forced. I feel like it would generate too much noise.
Okey dokes. That option could always be added as another feature in the future.
Thanks very much for all work on this.
==
tonyelewis added inline comments.
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/MissingHeaderFileDeclarationCheck.cpp:75
+ continue;
+if (AnyHeader || File->NamePart.equals_lower(ThisFile->NamePart))
+ return; // Found a good candidate for matching decl
---
tonyelewis added a comment.
Thanks very much.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73413/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://li
tonyelewis added a comment.
Thanks so much for all the effort on this. I think it's really wonderful.
I've added a couple of comments elsewhere.
My other query: does/should this check cover types? Eg does/should it fire on a
class definition in a .cpp file that isn't given internal-linkage? I'm
tonyelewis added a comment.
@njames93 Thank you very much for your continued input on this. Is your ping
for an automated process or a human? If the latter, is it for me or for the
reviewers?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73413/new
