Oh, yeah, that should probably
be clamped.
I didn’t have a specific use case in mind, but in general I find that tools
that emit “richer” information can be used for more things, hence returning
the count, and not some fixed value.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:58 AM Nathan James via Phabricator <
jroelofs abandoned this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
Hmm. There's no "close revision" button. Abandoning it in lieu of closing it.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
alexfh added a subscriber: jroelofs.
alexfh added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#326031, @jroelofs wrote:
> Hmm. There's no "close revision" button. Abandoning it in lieu of closing it.
Weird. That's probably because I've not marked it "Accepted". Now I tried a few
other actions
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 44650.
jroelofs added a comment.
Added docs.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528
Files:
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h
clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.h
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 44648.
jroelofs added a comment.
Address review comments.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528
Files:
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h
clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.h
jroelofs marked 9 inline comments as done.
jroelofs added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#312031, @alexfh wrote:
> Thank you for explaining. The use case seems to be important enough to
> support it. And the solution seems to be good for now. A few concerns:
>
> 1. `Werrors` isn't a good name for this. The only reason why a
jroelofs added a comment.
Thanks for the review! I'll rework this a bit early next week.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
alexfh added a comment.
Thank you for explaining. The use case seems to be important enough to support
it. And the solution seems to be good for now. A few concerns:
1. `Werrors` isn't a good name for this. The only reason why a similar thing is
called `-Werror` in compilers is that they use
jroelofs added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311019, @alexfh wrote:
> Jonathan, can you explain what specific use case does this patch address? Why
> one severity level of native clang-tidy warnings (the current situation) is
> not enough, and two levels are enough?
I have
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Jonathan, can you explain what specific use case does this patch address? Why
one severity level of native clang-tidy warnings (the current situation) is not
enough, and two levels
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/llvm-project/extra/test/clang-tidy/werrors-plural.cpp:7
@@ +6,3 @@
+// CHECK-WARN: warning: namespace 'j' not terminated with a closing comment
[llvm-namespace-comment]
+// CHECK-WERR: error: namespace 'j' not terminated
alexfh added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311053, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311019, @alexfh wrote:
>
> > Jonathan, can you explain what specific use case does this patch address?
> > Why one severity level of native clang-tidy warnings (the current
>
jroelofs added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311135, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311053, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528#311019, @alexfh wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan, can you explain what specific use case does this patch address?
> >
14 matches
Mail list logo
