[PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2017-02-13 Thread Gábor Horváth via Phabricator via cfe-commits
xazax.hun abandoned this revision. xazax.hun added a comment. -Wtautological-pointer-compare already covers this case. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.o

[PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2017-02-06 Thread Gábor Horváth via Phabricator via cfe-commits
xazax.hun added a comment. Hi Benedek, could you do the merge or should anybody commandeer these revisions? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/

Re: [PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2016-08-12 Thread Haojian Wu via cfe-commits
hokein added a comment. > This check looks like specific case of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23427. May > be they should be merged? +1, I think this check can be merged there. Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-comparison-function-address.cpp:20 @@ +19,3 @@ + // CHECK-MESSAGES:

Re: [PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2016-08-11 Thread Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits
Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. This check looks like specific case of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23427. May be they should be merged? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org htt

Re: [PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2016-08-11 Thread Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits
Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. Clang-tidy terminology use //checks//, not //checkers//. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23423 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cf

Re: [PATCH] D23423: [Clang-tidy] Comparison Function Address

2016-08-11 Thread Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits
Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. Please mention this check in docs/ReleaseNotes.rst (in alphabetical order). If I'm not mistaken, GCC or Clang has warning that result of comparison is always true for such situations. Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/ComparisonFunctionAddressCheck.h: