[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

lebedev.ri resigned from this revision. lebedev.ri added a comment. This revision now requires review to proceed. Herald added subscribers: carlosgalvezp, StephenFan. Herald added a reviewer: njames93. Herald added a project: All. This review seems to be stuck/dead, consider abandoning if no

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

lebedev.ri requested changes to this revision. lebedev.ri added inline comments. This revision now requires changes to proceed. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ImplicitBoolConversionCheck.cpp:270 +

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

pnappa updated this revision to Diff 196795. pnappa added a comment. Apologies for taking a while, I'm afraid I hadn't had a moment of spare time over the past few weeks. I believe I've applied the requested changes, bar one that I'm unsure about: @alexfh to be sure, would adding an Option to

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

alexfh added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ImplicitBoolConversionCheck.cpp:270 + AllowPointerConditions(Options.get("AllowPointerConditions", false)), +

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

alexfh added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ImplicitBoolConversionCheck.cpp:48 case CK_IntegralToBoolean: -return Type->isUnsignedIntegerType() ? "0u" : "0"; +if (UppercaseSuffix) { + return Type->isUnsignedIntegerType() ?

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

alexfh added a comment. In D59859#1444333 , @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D59859#1444176 , @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > I'm not sure why we want this? What is wrong with simply applying > > clang-tidy twice? > > > It

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

MyDeveloperDay added a comment. We normally add something to the documentation about the checker and/or the release notes to say what had changed Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ImplicitBoolConversionCheck.cpp:48 case CK_IntegralToBoolean: -return

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

aaron.ballman added a reviewer: alexfh. aaron.ballman added a subscriber: alexfh. aaron.ballman added a comment. > Intended as my first commit to the llvm-project. Welcome! Thank you for working on this! In D59859#1444176 , @lebedev.ri wrote: > Please

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

lebedev.ri added a reviewer: aaron.ballman. lebedev.ri added a comment. Please always upload all patches with full context (`-U9`) I'm not sure why we want this? What is wrong with simply applying clang-tidy twice? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D59859: [clang-tidy] FIXIT for implicit bool conversion now obeys upper case suffixes if enforced.

pnappa created this revision. pnappa added a reviewer: lebedev.ri. pnappa added a project: clang-tools-extra. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, jdoerfert, xazax.hun. Herald added a project: clang. Fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41199#c1 Previously, if a user implicitly cast