[PATCH] D111909: [clang-tidy] DefinitionsInHeadersCheck: Added option for checking C Code

whisperity added a comment. In D111909#3070593 , @schrc3b6 wrote: > I guess you don't want that to be cought if it is actually a tentative > definition. If I remember correctly for clang and gcc -fno-common is the > default. > I think we could do one of

[PATCH] D69560: [clang-tidy] Add 'bugprone-easily-swappable-parameters' check

whisperity marked 3 inline comments as done. whisperity added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/EasilySwappableParametersCheck.cpp:57 + "Const_Reverse_Iterator", + "const_reverse

[PATCH] D106431: [clang-tidy] Fix cppcoreguidelines-init-variables by removing the enum FixIt, and add support for initialization check of scoped enum.

whisperity added a comment. @Sockke Sorry to circle back here, but it seems to me that Clang now has a flag `-Wuninitialized`. Could you check how it behaves, compared to this check? If there are overlaps, what should we do, @aaron.ballman? Should parts of the check be deprecated? Repository:

[PATCH] D107450: [clang-tidy] Fix wrong FIxIt in performance-move-const-arg

whisperity added a comment. I'm a bit confused about this, but it has been a while since I read this patch. Am I right to think that the code in the patch and the original submission (the patch summary) diverged since the review started? I do not see anything "removed" from the test files, only

[PATCH] D108808: [clang-tidy] bugprone-infinite-loop: Fix false positives with volatile addresses.

whisperity added a comment. What happens for something like the following? Maybe it's also worth a test case? bool wait_analogue_pin(volatile int* address, int threshold) { while (*address < threshold) {} return true; } Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTIO

[PATCH] D108808: [clang-tidy] bugprone-infinite-loop: Fix false positives with volatile addresses.

whisperity added a comment. In D108808#2968742 , @gribozavr2 wrote: > In D108808#2968721 , @whisperity > wrote: > >> What happens for something like the following? Maybe it's also worth a test >> case? > > WDYT

[PATCH] D102325: [clang-tidy] cppcoreguidelines-virtual-base-class-destructor: a new check

whisperity added a comment. In D102325#2970683 , @mgartmann wrote: > @aaron.ballman Thanks a lot for your review! > > Can somebody help me merging this change? I do not have the rights to do so. > Thanks in advanve! Sure, just please specify what name an

[PATCH] D109210: [clang-tidy] Attach fixit to warning, not note, in add_new_check.py example

whisperity added a comment. Uuuh.. I get the sentiment, but this change breaks the very essence of the joke that the default generated code wants to pass on. It also does not showcase that we can emit notes, not just warnings. How about `function %0 is insufficiently awesome, mark it as 'awesom

[PATCH] D108912: [release][analyzer] Add 13.0.0 release notes

whisperity added inline comments. Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:300-304 +.. 90377308de6c [analyzer] Support allocClassWithName in OSObjectCStyleCast checker + +- Add support for ``allocClassWithName`` in OSObjectCStyleCast checker. + +.. cad9b7f708e2b2d19d7890494980c5e

[PATCH] D109210: [clang-tidy] Attach fixit to warning, not note, in add_new_check.py example

whisperity added a comment. @mattbeardsley Thank you for the explanation. (I'd wager some of your observations could even be added to some developer docs that's versioned in the repo. 😉) I'm not opposed to the changes at all. And indeed, it looks like `Note`s are really an advanced feature. I'm

[PATCH] D102325: [clang-tidy] cppcoreguidelines-virtual-base-class-destructor: a new check

whisperity added a comment. In D102325#2981760 , @mgartmann wrote: > @whisperity Thanks a lot for helping me out! Sorry I got busy with a few official business and then got deeply distracted by what I'm working on, but I'll get to committing this ASAP.

[PATCH] D102325: [clang-tidy] cppcoreguidelines-virtual-base-class-destructor: a new check

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGc58c7a6ea053: [clang-tidy] cppcoreguidelines-virtual-base-class-destructor: a new check (authored by mgartmann, committed by whisperity). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102325?vs=36

<    1   2   3   4   5   6