sammccall added a comment. In D58291#1469917 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58291#1469917>, @kadircet wrote:
> In D58291#1469880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58291#1469880>, @sammccall wrote: > > > It's a good question, it depends how this is surfaced, and we may want to > > tweak the behavior or suppress entirely in some cases. > > I think at least some are useful: > > > > - clang-tidy check names are things users need to know about (used for > > configuration) > > - for warnings, we quite likely should replace with the most specific > > warning category (e.g. "unreachable-code-loop-increment"), again these are > > used for configuration (-W) > > - for others, maybe we should at least trim the err_ prefix, or maybe drop > > them entirely. > > > I see, I believe we can decide on what tweaks to perform after landing this > patch and seeing behaviors in different editors, but up to you. > > As for the lit-tests, it would be great to have a diag with source clang-tidy > if it is not too much of a hustle. Done. There are some things I know I want to tweak (clang-tidy keeps the name of the check in the message...), will follow up. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58291/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58291 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
