> Did you try running the check on the whole LLVM project, for example?
I tried this and got a number of (benign) warnings from the Clang AST library. I'm not yet sure about the rest of the project since the AST warnings were mostly from header files and filled my scrollback buffer (I hope clang-tidy gets deduplication one day). > As for the right place for this check, neither LLVM nor Google C++ coding style say anything about /*Param=*/ constructs It may be a good idea to codify this informal rule in the LLVM coding standards given the existing precedent and the fact that we can now verify it. I'll see if I can write up a proposal. > so it doesn't seem right to put it into one of those. So I think I have a more fundamental question around the organization of clang-tidy checkers. Quite a few comments in the initial clang-tidy review (D884) revolved around checker organization and I think now is probably the right time to think about reorganizing especially if we do decide not to change the coding standards. My strawman proposal is to reorganize the checkers with a single checker per .cpp file, each in a new directory "checkers" under the clang-tidy directory. I can start with this checker and we can probably move the other checkers incrementally. What do you think? http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
