ccotter marked an inline comment as done. ccotter added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/rvalue-reference-param-not-moved.cpp:1 +// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++14-or-later %s cppcoreguidelines-rvalue-reference-param-not-moved %t -- -- -fno-delayed-template-parsing + ---------------- carlosgalvezp wrote: > ccotter wrote: > > carlosgalvezp wrote: > > > ccotter wrote: > > > > ccotter wrote: > > > > > carlosgalvezp wrote: > > > > > > You specified C++11 in the LangOpts, but test against C++14 or > > > > > > later in the test, maybe change it here to c++11-or-later? > > > > > The test uses generalize lambda capture, so it needs 14. Should I > > > > > split the tests that use C++14 features to a separate file, and > > > > > update this test file to use 11? > > > > Ah, and use of `auto` parameters in other lambdas. So there are a few > > > > tests that would need to be split out to a separate file, use an `ifdef > > > > __cplusplus` check (I see one other cppcoreguidelines test does this). > > > Oops I forgot to submit my comment. Yes I think we could keep everything > > > in one test file running `c++11-or-later`, and `#ifdef` the C++14 parts. > > This didn't actually end up working. The test failed looking for expected > > CHECK-MESSAGES, e.g., > > > > ``` > > #if __cplusplus >= 201402L > > /* bad code */ > > // CHECK-MESSAGES > > #endif > > ``` > > > > I'll go the separate file route then? > Hmm right. > > What about 2 `RUN` commands in the same file? One of them you run it for > `c++11` and the other for `c++14-or-later`. You can add a `check-prefix` for > the C++14 case, then use `CHECK-MESSAGES-SOMEPREFIX` such that it only > applies to that test invocation. No need to duplicate `CHECK-MESSAGES` for > both runs - if no prefix is specified, it will apply to all runs. > > Something like: > > ``` > #if __cplusplus >= 201402L > /* bad code */ > // CHECK-MESSAGES-CXX14 > #endif > ``` > > If it gets too messy maybe a separate test file is the better option, I'm > hoping there's not much duplication that needs to be maintaned. Perfect - I didn't realize the test/checker framework was this flexible. Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141569/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141569 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
