This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL339437: [clang-tidy] check_clang_tidy.py: support
CHECK-NOTES prefix (authored by lebedevri, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D3
JonasToth added a comment.
LGTM
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 160107.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Add docs note.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
test/clang-tidy/hicpp-exception-baseclass.cpp
Index: test
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 160106.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Rebase (ugh, bitrot), port `test/clang-tidy/hicpp-exception-baseclass.cpp`.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
test/clang-tidy/hicpp-exc
alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#1187959, @JonasToth wrote:
> @lebedev.ri and @alexfh i would change the tests in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D48714 to use CHECK-NOTES. Is it ok, to commit th
JonasToth added a comment.
@lebedev.ri and @alexfh i would change the tests in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48714 to use CHECK-NOTES. Is it ok, to commit this
one?
For testing purposes, you could change a single line of
`hicpp-exception-baseclass.cpp` to use the CHECK-NOTES. I do the rest :)
Re
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
As per the previous comment: I have no concerns as long as the documentation is
updated and at least one existing test is changed to use this feature (see the
list in the previous co
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 154490.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Rebased, just to control bitrot, no changes.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
Index: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
=
alexfh added a comment.
It looks like some existing tests could benefit from this:
$ grep -R -l 'note: ' test/clang-tidy/
test/clang-tidy/bugprone-forward-declaration-namespace.cpp
test/clang-tidy/llvm-twine-local.cpp
test/clang-tidy/overlapping.cpp
test/clang-tidy/google-readability-ne
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#953953, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#953891, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > I think you're set to commit this
>
>
> Should i commit it though?
> Until licensing concerns with https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#953891, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think you're set to commit this
Should i commit it though?
Until licensing concerns with https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836 are finally
magically resolved and it is committed, there won't be any users
aaron.ballman added a comment.
I think you're set to commit this -- if @alexfh has concerns, they can be
addressed post-commit.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llv
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 126681.
lebedev.ri changed the repository for this revision from rL LLVM to rCTE Clang
Tools Extra.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Rebased.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
lebedev.ri added a comment.
@alexfh any thoughts on this one?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I am okay with this direction but would still like @alexfh to accept before you
commit.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
___
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 119758.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Rebased.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
Index: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 113254.
lebedev.ri marked an inline comment as done.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Reword the 'no magic found' error message.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
Index: test/clang-tidy/check
aaron.ballman added a comment.
> I do agree that it makes sense to keep it as low as possible, but also i see
> a clear logic between all thee current checks:
Thank you for the explanation. I think that makes sense to me, but I'd like to
hear from @alexfh before accepting.
C
JonasToth added a comment.
alright. i thought it would do something different, but the enforcement to
handle all notes is a good thing. forget what i wrote :)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-c
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#856501, @JonasToth wrote:
> Note can be handled right now as well.
Yes. Adding this new prefix is about adding `-implicit-check-not=notes`.
I.e. if you use `CHECK-MESSAGES`, then it will only enforce you to have
check-lines for all
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892#856469, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Instead of CHECK-NOTES, do we want to extend CHECK-MESSAGES to handle `note`
> in addition to `warning` and `error`?
If i change `CHECK-MESSAGES` to also require all the notes to be checked, a
*lot*
JonasToth added a comment.
Note can be handled right now as well. E.g.
// CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-2]]:3: note: type deduction did not result in an
owner
would the patch handle the codelocation correctly?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
_
aaron.ballman added a comment.
Instead of CHECK-NOTES, do we want to extend CHECK-MESSAGES to handle `note` in
addition to `warning` and `error`? I'd prefer to keep the number of "magic"
names as low as possible so I have to remember less stuff when writing or
reviewing tests.
Repository:
r
lebedev.ri updated this revision to Diff 113226.
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Rebased.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36892
Files:
test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
Index: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py
lebedev.ri created this revision.
lebedev.ri added a project: clang-tools-extra.
Herald added subscribers: xazax.hun, JDevlieghere.
Currently, there is two configured prefixes: `CHECK-FIXES` and `CHECK-MESSAGES`
`CHECK-MESSAGES` checks that there are no test output lines with
`warning:|error:`, w
25 matches
Mail list logo
