xgsa added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#954661, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#953888, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > FWIW, I think we should do something about unknown check names in NOLINT > > comments, but that can be done as a follow-up patch. If we're ignoring the > > comment, we might want to diagnose that fact so users have an idea what's > > going on. > > > IIUC, cpplint can output a diagnostic about unknown categories inside NOLINT > and about NOLINT directives that happen on lines where no warning is emitted. > Both would be useful in clang-tidy, IMO. I agree with your statements and I think there should be the following diagnostics about NOLINT usage: - as you described, using of NOLINT with unknown check names; - using of NOLINT for the line, on which there is no diagnostics (at all with NOLINT and for the swpecified diagnostics); this should help to detect dangling NOLINT comments, that have no meaning anymore. Moreover, there should be a way to turn on/off these diagnostics, so possibily they should be a separate checks. What do you think? Is there a way for a check to collect the emitted diagnostics? https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
