lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#802884, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775916, @alexfh wrote:
>
> > I think, this kind of a check needs some prior research (not necessarily in
> > the sense of a printed paper, but at least a thoughtful anal
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775916, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775880, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775860, @alexfh wrote:
> >
> > > I guess, this check should go to `readability` or elsewhere, but
> > > d
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775880, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775860, @alexfh wrote:
>
> > I guess, this check should go to `readability` or elsewhere, but definitely
> > not to `misc`.
>
>
> Hmm, `misc` may be a bad place for this, bu
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365#775860, @alexfh wrote:
> I guess, this check should go to `readability` or elsewhere, but definitely
> not to `misc`.
Hmm, `misc` may be a bad place for this, but i think `readability` is even
worse fit.
The best guess would be so
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I guess, this check should go to `readability` or elsewhere, but definitely not
to `misc`.
Another big question is whether it's reasonable to set up specific ratio limits
on the den
lebedev.ri added a comment.
I will obviously try to add lambda handling, but until then, the general idea
and design should be pretty much done, so i'd love to hear any feedback about
the current diff :)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33365
