5chmidti wrote: > > Actually, the cxxRecordDecl might not be in a macro, but the special member > > functions are. > > The checker doc states: > `The check finds classes where some but not all of the special member > functions are defined.` > I think we only need to ignore if the whole class expands from macro. If not, > I don't see a reason why a user can't provided needed members.
Good point > > I'd prefer to see a warning for expansions of macros defined inside the > > code base > > I think we could just limit the scope of the whole check by > `unless(isExpansionInSystemHeader())`. > There was some work by [carlosgalvezp](https://github.com/carlosgalvezp) to > ignore system headers in all checks by default so maybe this addition will > become obsolete soon. Yeah, this was just a thought. But that work would not be for this (I think). I meant macros defined in system headers, but with expansions in user code. > > I'm +- on the default > > FYI there is a total of 22 checks that use `IgnoreMacros` option, 17 of them > have `true` by default and 5 have `false` > Then let's stay with what it is now (true). For things like goto, it makes IMO sense to use false because goto is a really bad pattern. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143550 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
