aaron.ballman added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1015208, @jdemeule wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1013558, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1013497, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a way to make clang-apply-replacements smarter rather than 
> > > forcing every check to jump through hoops? I'm worried that if we have to 
> > > fix individual checks we'll just run into the same bug later.
> >
> >
> > See 
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161017/174238.html
> I was not aware of //cleanupAroundReplacements//. It should be a better 
> option than fixing every check one by one. I am working on adding it on 
> clang-apply-replacement for now and another review will be propose soon.
> Should we discard this patch or keep only the added tests (if you found them 
> relevant after fixing the comments)?

I'd keep the test cases, as they're good examples for us to ensure we don't 

  rCTE Clang Tools Extra


cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to