alexfh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MiscTidyModule.cpp:58
@@ -57,3 +56,1 @@
- CheckFactories.registerCheck<InefficientAlgorithmCheck>(
- "misc-inefficient-algorithm");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<MacroParenthesesCheck>(
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This will break projects that enable the misc-inefficient-algorithm check
> (which clang 3.7 exposed). Is there a reason to not keep this check
> registered under this name?
>
> (Perhaps a follow-up patch to allow deprecation of check names so that users
> are given guidance would make sense.)
I don't feel strongly, but I'm somewhat reluctant to keep old check names. With
every new clang-tidy version someone starts using on a project, they need to
carefully look at the list of checks and select relevant ones anyway. I think,
adding facilities for deprecating checks and keeping old names is not going to
help much, but will certainly add support burden for us.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-inefficient-algorithm.rst:4
@@ -5,1 +3,3 @@
+.. meta::
+ :http-equiv=refresh: 5;URL=performance-inefficient-algorithm.html
----------------
We need to change the add_new_check.py script to exclude obsolete check names
from the list (it could exclude all files marked `:orphan:`). Tell me, if you
need help with this.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-inefficient-algorithm.rst:3
@@ -2,3 +2,3 @@
-misc-inefficient-algorithm
+performance-inefficient-algorithm
==========================
----------------
After reading this check name a few times, I found it too generic (one may
think that this is a generic algorithm-level code profiler ;). I think, we need
to rename it to `performance-inefficient-lookup-algorithm` or
`performance-inefficient-search-algorithm`, since we're changing the name
anyway.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-inefficient-algorithm.rst:4
@@ -4,2 +3,3 @@
+performance-inefficient-algorithm
==========================
----------------
Please make the underlining the same length as the line above.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16248
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
