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`
Let me know if you have any question, and I'm happy to review the patch when
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
cfe-commits mailing list