ioeric 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. That would be awesome Jeremy! Thanks! I think it might be easier if you convert all replacements to `tooling::AtomicChange` and use `applyAtomicChanges` (https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/include/clang/Tooling/Refactoring/AtomicChange.h#L172) in clang-apply-replacements. Let me know if you have any question, and I'm happy to review the patch when it's ready! Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
