lebedev.ri added a comment.
Looks good to me, but i'm still uneasy about doing the checking in inverted
sense.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/concurrency/MtUnsafeCheck.cpp:31-32
+
+// Initial list was extracted from gcc documentation
+static const StringRef GlibcFunctions[] = {
+ "::argp_error",
----------------
I commented, but the comment was lost; do these arrays really have to be in
namespace?
I'd think they can be right afterwards `using namespace clang::ast_matchers;`.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/concurrency/MtUnsafeCheck.h:9
+
+#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_CONCURRENT_MTUNSAFECHECK_H
+#define LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_CONCURRENT_MTUNSAFECHECK_H
----------------
s/CONCURRENT/CONCURRENCY/, maybe elsewhere too
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90944/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90944
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
