aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#954906, @xgsa wrote:
> 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? I think this is desirable functionality and can be done in follow-up patches. NOLINT of unknown check names should be pretty easy, but detecting NOLINT comments on lines that do not trigger the specified diagnostic may be a bit more tricky. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
