https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148384
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148357
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148352
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147793
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> I will add it in a separate PR. Don't feel right to make kind-of unrelated
> changes after most of the people gave their consent.
Ok!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147793
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@li
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Thank you for driving this, LGTM!
One last thing I'm missing: can you update the clang-tidy contributors guide,
to explain that we expect people to run clang-tidy as well (and what command to
run)? Since it's not currently enforced in CI.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-pro
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> bellow specific size
Like I mentioned in the other patch I think this is brittle and leads to poor
UX, because you add 1 field to a struct in a header file and suddenly you have
to change all clients.
I'd be preferred to have the user specify which types to warn on. Ma
carlosgalvezp wrote:
@PiotrZSL Here's some examples discussing the performance implications
https://youtu.be/IDQ0ng8RIqs?si=fDUuTFK9GiGCB-Po
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147809
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142839
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that it would be good to have one single check
enforcing either one style or the other, possibly a "readability" type of
check. Then llvm could be an alias with the proper config.
I suppose this patch does not impede further refactoring if we wa
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146830
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147793
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
+1 to moving to `readability`.
What's the behavior when you have:
```cpp
#if defined(foo) && defined(bar)
```
? I don't believe I saw a test for this use case.
As a user I would probably prefer to keep it as is instead of having one
`ifdef` and one `if defined`. Perhaps
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Check makes sense to me! As a first iteration it's fine without autofix but I
can imagine it will be hard for a codebase to enable this check given the large
amount of things to fix. Maybe users can specify a mapping of wanted types via
an option?
https://github.com/llvm/
carlosgalvezp wrote:
I'm ok with modernize-use-constexpr as well!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146553
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
misc-use-constexpr? :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146553
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -87,3 +87,25 @@ void okay() {
for(int ii : a) ; // OK, pointer arithmetic generated by compiler
}
+
+namespace issue126424 {
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Nit: typically we can it "gh126424".
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127394
___
carlosgalvezp wrote:
I think this patch can be orthogonal to the system headers one, the original
one from @njames93 contained similar logic I believe (but I chose to not
include it for simplicity).
It's probably good to apply this change now before modules become mainstream
and we have debt
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM, don't have strong opinions on the default.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143550
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
@@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ using namespace clang::ast_matchers;
namespace clang::tidy::cppcoreguidelines {
+namespace {
+AST_MATCHER(CXXRecordDecl, isInMacro) {
carlosgalvezp wrote:
(For another commit) This comes up often, maybe we can create an AST matcher
for th
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143554
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -265,6 +265,8 @@ Changes in existing checks
` check performance by
tolerating fix-it breaking compilation when functions is used as pointers
to avoid matching usage of functions within the current compilation unit.
+ Added an option `IsAllowedInCoroutines` with the de
@@ -50,3 +50,12 @@ Modern C++ needs ``goto`` only to jump out of nested loops.
some_operation();
All other uses of ``goto`` are diagnosed in `C++`.
+
+
+Options
+---
+
+.. option:: IgnoreMacros
+
+ If set to `true`, the check will not warn if both label and ``goto``
+
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM, thank you! Perhaps wait a couple days in case there's anything left from
other reviewers.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@list
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143324
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> Maybe same should be doe for Clang-Tidy?
It should already be in place, but like stated above, sometimes the CI checks
don't run automatically, it requires a maintainer to click a button to trigger
them. I don't know why this is, maybe based on CI load, but good to keep
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143316
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143315
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM. Personally I think it would have been fine to do it all in one patch,
less commits to add to the git-blame-ignore later. But it's ok!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143314
_
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Thanks for fixing quickly!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143305
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143305
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
What I saw is that some checks don't run automatically, but must be manually
triggered (I guess by a maintainer). I did click on the button to run them and
immediately after you merged the patch, good syncing :)
I understand this might be done to save CI resources, but cla
carlosgalvezp wrote:
@vbvictor it seems this was merged before the CI checks finished running, next
time please wait for that ;) Could you or @thorsten-klein fix the broken
autoformatter?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124265
___
cfe-commi
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141391
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143281
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Went for adding an option instead!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
>From 3e9f3b2d01343be72c1da3a4dafe9fc2f23c2e63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Carlos=20G=C3=A1lvez?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 07:45:04 +
Subject: [PATCH] [clang-tidy] Add option to disable
bug
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
>From 4de236aac2c75c1c092ac6b46591839678114365 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Carlos=20G=C3=A1lvez?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 07:45:04 +
Subject: [PATCH] [clang-tidy] Add option to disable
bug
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> The check can recognize side effects.
Ok, that's great! Did you have a chance to run the test on a large codebase
(e.g. the llvm-project) and see if we get any FPs in this regard?
> if the check does more than one thing (readability, performance) we should
> place it u
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
I think this is the correct thing to do. It's a programming error if these
pointers are null, and so assertions are the correct tool for this.
Other checks do `if (const auto* Found = ...)`, but that's not correct, since
it silences
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> takes less time than evaluating both operands.
Actually, another reason for *not* putting this in `performance` is that the
changes made by this check may lead to non-functional changes in the code. If
the RHS operand is a function that has side effects, this check will
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s google-readability-namespace-comments %t
-std=c++20 \
+// RUN: '-config={CheckOptions: { \
+// RUN:
google-readability-namespace-comments.AllowOmittingNamespaceComments: true, \
+// RUN: google-readability-namespace-commen
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Please call it "nested-namespaces" instead of "c++17".
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailm
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Also, please rebase (there are some merge conflicts), and also mark
conversations as resolved (I see there's a few remaining)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp commented:
LGTM, with some small comments :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++11-or-later %s
cppcoreguidelines-use-enum-class %t
+
+enum E {};
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:6: warning: enum 'E' is unscoped, use 'enum
class' instead
+
+enum class EC {};
+
+struct S {
+ enum E {};
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES:
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++11-or-later %s
cppcoreguidelines-use-enum-class %t -- \
carlosgalvezp wrote:
I believe it should be possible to merge these two test files, and provide a
specific CHECK-MESSAGES-FULL (or similar) that only war
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++11-or-later %s
cppcoreguidelines-use-enum-class %t -- \
+// RUN: -config="{CheckOptions:
{cppcoreguidelines-use-enum-class.IgnoreUnscopedEnumsInClasses: true}}" --
+
+enum E {};
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:6: warning: en
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM, if all tests pass then this must be dead code! Thanks for cleaning up.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://l
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Personally I don't think this is a `performance` check. Boolean operators are
for bools; bitwise operators are for ints. I would put this in `readability` or
`misc` instead.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142324
___
cf
@@ -46,20 +46,20 @@ TEST(ClangTidyOptionsProvider, InMemoryFileSystems) {
FileOptionsProvider FileOpt({}, {}, {}, FileSystem);
- ClangTidyOptions File1Options =
+ llvm::ErrorOr File1Options =
FileOpt.getOptions("ProjectRoot/SubDir1/File.cpp");
- ClangTidyOptions F
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136167
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -46,20 +46,65 @@ TEST(ClangTidyOptionsProvider, InMemoryFileSystems) {
FileOptionsProvider FileOpt({}, {}, {}, FileSystem);
- ClangTidyOptions File1Options =
+ llvm::ErrorOr File1Options =
FileOpt.getOptions("ProjectRoot/SubDir1/File.cpp");
- ClangTidyOptions F
@@ -265,8 +265,16 @@ const ClangTidyOptions &ClangTidyContext::getOptions()
const {
ClangTidyOptions ClangTidyContext::getOptionsForFile(StringRef File) const {
// Merge options on top of getDefaults() as a safeguard against options with
// unset values.
- return ClangTid
@@ -46,20 +46,65 @@ TEST(ClangTidyOptionsProvider, InMemoryFileSystems) {
FileOptionsProvider FileOpt({}, {}, {}, FileSystem);
- ClangTidyOptions File1Options =
+ llvm::ErrorOr File1Options =
FileOpt.getOptions("ProjectRoot/SubDir1/File.cpp");
- ClangTidyOptions F
carlosgalvezp wrote:
You can check the discussion in the linked issue. The argument is that these
casts are idiomatic in C, and does not make sense to pollute the code with
casts. There's no other safer alternative either.
> then probably they should just disable a check
There doesn't appear
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141209
It is deemed more of an annoyance than a help, since the patterns the check
warns about are quite common and idiomatic in C, and there are no good
alternatives.
Thus, enable the check only for C++, where
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140759
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ struct UnqualNameVisitor : public
RecursiveASTVisitor {
};
} // namespace
-constexpr llvm::StringLiteral Message =
+constexpr llvm::StringLiteral MessageFunction =
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Ok! I think this change would have been better to do
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Apologies for the delay, I will review during this week!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136167
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -383,6 +382,10 @@ void UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck::keepSpecifiers(
}
}
+UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck::UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck(
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Nit: typically we keep these in the header in this case, since it's just 1 more
line in the header, comp
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ struct UnqualNameVisitor : public
RecursiveASTVisitor {
};
} // namespace
-constexpr llvm::StringLiteral Message =
+constexpr llvm::StringLiteral MessageFunction =
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Nit: I think the name was clearer before. I read this
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Thanks, I didn't notice they were the same. In that case they should be removed
and have nothing. Optionally one can add a human-readable comment like "Should
not trigger here" or something, but it's not necessary.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140753
_
carlosgalvezp wrote:
Also, CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT is discouraged, since the testing framework already
checked that no other output is produced by default.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp requested changes to this pull request.
Why are the fixes being removed? CHECK-FIXES is not equivalent to
CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lis
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140520
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140520
>From 35769db674fc2ebe7c0dda9ed329806b8b059414 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Carlos=20G=C3=A1lvez?=
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 09:35:30 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-tidy] Do not flag strerror i
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140520
The docs of the check state:
> Glibc’s list is compiled from GNU web documentation with a search for MT-Safe
> tag
And strerror fulfills exactly that:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM.
In the future, please provide more details about exactly which tool you are
using, which you call "sanitizer". For example, what is the name of the tool?
"sanitizers" are tools to detect issues at runtime; here you are using a
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138504
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> because the cases handled by it are covered by CaptureByRefExplicit.
Strange, can you explain why that's the case? Are we missing tests?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138504
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@l
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138305
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138305
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ Changes in existing checks
` check to allow specifying
additional C++ member functions to match.
+- Improved :doc:`cppcoreguidelines-pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic
+ ` check by
+ fix false positives related to operator overloading and templates.
-
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
LGTM in general, but won't this fail with a std::map, since the key
is an integer?
Please rebase on top of latest main and resolve conflicts.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commi
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp requested changes to this pull request.
Please document the change in the Release Notes
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136167
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
@@ -46,20 +46,20 @@ TEST(ClangTidyOptionsProvider, InMemoryFileSystems) {
FileOptionsProvider FileOpt({}, {}, {}, FileSystem);
- ClangTidyOptions File1Options =
+ llvm::ErrorOr File1Options =
FileOpt.getOptions("ProjectRoot/SubDir1/File.cpp");
- ClangTidyOptions F
@@ -624,21 +623,29 @@ int clangTidyMain(int argc, const char **argv) {
}
SmallString<256> FilePath = makeAbsolute(FileName);
- ClangTidyOptions EffectiveOptions = OptionsProvider->getOptions(FilePath);
+ llvm::ErrorOr EffectiveOptions =
+ OptionsProvider->getOptions
@@ -370,8 +369,8 @@ static void printStats(const ClangTidyStats &Stats) {
}
}
-static std::unique_ptr createOptionsProvider(
- llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr FS) {
+static std::unique_ptr
+createOptionsProvider(llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr FS) {
carlosgalvezp wrote:
@@ -337,8 +337,7 @@ Allow empty enabled checks. This suppresses
the "no checks enabled" error when disabling
all of the checks.
)"),
- cl::init(false),
- cl::cat(ClangTidyCategory));
+
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ ClangTidyOptions
ClangTidyContext::getOptionsForFile(StringRef File) const {
// Merge options on top of getDefaults() as a safeguard against options with
// unset values.
return ClangTidyOptions::getDefaults().merge(
- OptionsProvider->getOptions
carlosgalvezp wrote:
/cherry-pick 014ab736dc741f24c007f9861e24b31faba0e1e7
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137286
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137286
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
/cherry-pick
[014ab73](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/014ab736dc741f24c007f9861e24b31faba0e1e7)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137286
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.ll
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137286
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134774
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
carlosgalvezp wrote:
@RiverDave Do you have permissions to land the PR, or shall I do it for you?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134774
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> It can also happen in user defined class.
Yes. But it's unclear what the behavior of the check should be. For
`std::array`, it's clear, because one must not touch the internal element. For
a user-defined type, "it depends" on how the user wants to design their struct.
https://github.com/carlosgalvezp approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134774
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
1 - 100 of 599 matches
Mail list logo