This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL251792: Fix crash in redundant-void-arg check. (authored by
angelgarcia).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14204?vs=38889&id=38890#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D1
alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a reviewer: alexfh.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks! Looks good!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14204
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http:
angelgarcia updated this revision to Diff 38889.
angelgarcia added a comment.
Sorry, I forgot. That case works just fine.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14204
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/RedundantVoidArgCheck.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-redundant-void-arg.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/modernize-r
alexfh added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14204#278833, @angelgarcia wrote:
> Use Lexer::makeFileCharRange (and a few changes due to clang-format).
>
> It seems to work as well.
Can you add a test where a void argument is removed in a macro (which would be
the whole point of using th
angelgarcia updated this revision to Diff 38887.
angelgarcia added a comment.
Use Lexer::makeFileCharRange (and a few changes due to clang-format).
It seems to work as well.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14204
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/RedundantVoidArgCheck.cpp
test/clang-tidy/modernize-redun
alexfh added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/RedundantVoidArgCheck.cpp:131
@@ -130,1 +130,3 @@
StringRef GrammarLocation) {
+ if (Range.getBegin().isMacroID() || Range.getEnd().isMacroID())
+return;
What happens if instead you pass the
