[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

VitaNuo updated this revision to Diff 526558. VitaNuo added a comment. Address review comments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793 Files: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/CMakeLists.txt

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

VitaNuo marked 8 inline comments as done. VitaNuo added a comment. Thanks for the comments! I'll re-assign the review to Haojian for now, so that we can hopefully make more progress this week. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/IncludeCleanerCheck.cpp:48 +void Inclu

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

kadircet added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/IncludeCleanerCheck.cpp:42 + +struct MissingIncludeInfo { + SourceLocation SymRefLocation; let's put this struct into anon namespace Comment at: clang-tools-extra/cl

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

VitaNuo updated this revision to Diff 526064. VitaNuo marked 13 inline comments as done. VitaNuo added a comment. Rework according to the review comments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793 F

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

sammccall added a comment. Drive-by nit: want add this to the `disableUnusableChecks()` blocklist in `clangd/TidyProvider.cpp`? Since inside clangd we want to use the direct feature instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793/new/

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

kadircet added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/IncludeCleanerCheck.cpp:61 +void IncludeCleanerCheck::storeOptions(ClangTidyOptions::OptionMap &Opts) { + Options.store(Opts, "Suppress", ""); +} after storing them in the class state

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

VitaNuo updated this revision to Diff 524336. VitaNuo marked 19 inline comments as done. VitaNuo added a comment. Address review comments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793 Files: clang-to

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

kadircet added a comment. thanks, mostly LG at the high level i think one thing we're missing is the ability to suppress analysis for certain headers, similar to what we have in clangd config options. can you add a check option for that? Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-ti

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

VitaNuo updated this revision to Diff 520307. VitaNuo marked 2 inline comments as done. VitaNuo added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: arphaman. Move the check from "google" to "misc". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148793/new/

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

kadircet added a comment. Hi folks, the rationale for a clang-tidy check is enabling include-cleaner findings to be applied at scale and integrations into existing workflows (e.g. a lot of people run cleanups using clang-tidy findings hence there's somewhat existing infra for that). current in

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. In D148793#4283733 , @carlosgalvezp wrote: > I believe this should be discussed in an RFC. We already have the standalone > `include-cleaner` tool, why is that not sufficient? Can it be extended > instead? There's also t

[PATCH] D148793: [WIP][clang-tidy] Implement an include-cleaner check.

carlosgalvezp added a comment. I believe this should be discussed in an RFC. We already have the standalone `include-cleaner` tool, why is that not sufficient? Can it be extended instead? There's also the include-what-you-use tool o