[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:442 +if (PrimaryCheckValue != Value) { + std::cout << "Alias check \"" << CheckName.str() << "\" of \"" +<< PrimaryCheckName.str() << "\""

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

Jeroen added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:442 +if (PrimaryCheckValue != Value) { + std::cout << "Alias check \"" << CheckName.str() << "\" of \"" +<< PrimaryCheckName.str() << "\""

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. > no, I don't think that's quite what we want." :-) Sorry for not being specific enough :) What we want is to keep this (current user-facing behavior today): error: forgot to frobble the quux [bugprone-frobble-quux, cert-quux45-cpp] As opposed to: error:

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D114317#3197815 , @carlosgalvezp wrote: >> me pretty far behind on reviews > > Wow, that's a lot to review! I will keep it in mind and hopefully only ping > you when I have a nice final design ready to go. Really

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyModule.h:25-26 +#define CLANG_TIDY_REGISTER_CHECK(Factory, CheckType, CheckName) \ + Factory.registerCheck(CheckName, #CheckType) + aaron.ballman wrote: >

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. > me pretty far behind on reviews Wow, that's a lot to review! I will keep it in mind and hopefully only ping you when I have a nice final design ready to go. Really appreciate your early feedback! > I'd like to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Yes,

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

aaron.ballman added a reviewer: alexfh. aaron.ballman added a subscriber: alexfh. aaron.ballman added a comment. In D114317#3169067 , @carlosgalvezp wrote: > Kind ping to reviewers, I mostly want to know if you agree with the general > direction so I

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. Kind ping to reviewers, I mostly want to know if you agree with the general direction so I can go ahead and implement the rest of the patch. It's a big change (replace all check registrations with the macro) so I'd like to avoid extra work if you are strongly

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. > this still seems like a half a solution I see, thanks for the input! I took configuration into account due to the concerns raised in previous patch attempts and in the RFC. I believe both use cases are valid so it makes sense to me to support both as

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

lebedev.ri added a comment. In D114317#3150615 , @carlosgalvezp wrote: >> it is likely that the options were tuned, but most likely only for a single >> check. > > Yes, if the alias check has a different configuration than the primary check > then

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. > it is likely that the options were tuned, but most likely only for a single > check. Yes, if the alias check has a different configuration than the primary check then they are considered as "different" checks (as they should be, since they produce potentially

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

lebedev.ri added a comment. Thank you for looking into it! In D114317#3149693 , @carlosgalvezp wrote: > In D114317#3149504 , > @salman-javed-nz wrote: > >> What would you say are the key differences between

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D114317#3149504 , @salman-javed-nz wrote: > What would you say are the key differences between this patch differ and > previous attempts, e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566? How does this patch > address the

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

salman-javed-nz added a comment. What would you say are the key differences between this patch differ and previous attempts, e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566? How does this patch address the concerns raised in the previous reviews? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D114317: [clang-tidy][WIP] Do not run perfect alias checks

carlosgalvezp created this revision. carlosgalvezp added a reviewer: aaron.ballman. Herald added subscribers: jeroen.dobbelaere, kbarton, xazax.hun, nemanjai. carlosgalvezp requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang-tools-extra. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. Find