On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 00:14, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:27, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 06:11, Owen Pan wrote:
> >
> > I noticed one issue which I wonder if it does qualify for a bug report:
> >
> > TL;TR: arrow followed by typename keyword is not handl
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:27, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 06:11, Owen Pan wrote:
>
> I noticed one issue which I wonder if it does qualify for a bug report:
>
> TL;TR: arrow followed by typename keyword is not handled
>
> Before:
>
> template
> auto bbb(detai
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 22:25, Jonas Toth wrote:
> Am 10.12.18 um 22:14 schrieb Mateusz Loskot via cfe-users:
> >
> > Why clang-tidy tries to re-fix the typedef with new replacement
> > instead of keeping the existing one, the generic one?
>
> Maybe a bug that does not
Hi,
I'm running clang-tidy 7.0 (also tried 5.0) to modernise some aspects
of Boost.GIL (https://github.com/boostorg/gil) source code.
I've noticed, clang-tidy 7.0 (also 5.0) does not apply fixes for some of
modernize-use-* checks, especially modernize-use-using.
I run it this way:
```
cd ${BOOS
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 06:11, Owen Pan wrote:
>
> I think that was a bug fix as the latest clang-format will convert the
> "Before" code to "After" even in the absence of the .clang-format
> configuration file.
Thanks for the hint.
I upgraded from 6.0 to 7.0 and it does handle the trailing retur
Hi,
I'm looking for clang-format features to control formatting of
functions with trailing return type.
I found this related change
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20150601/130293.html
What are the options to control the formatting presented in that message?
Namely, how t
On 21 May 2018 at 20:08, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On 21 May 2018 at 19:27, Jan Korous wrote:
>>
>> You are hitting UB because of signed integer overflow.
>> [...]
>>
>> BTW This is a perfect opportunity to try out UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer!
>>
>> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanit
On 21 May 2018 at 19:27, Jan Korous wrote:
>
> You are hitting UB because of signed integer overflow.
> [...]
>
> BTW This is a perfect opportunity to try out UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer!
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
>
>> clang++ -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Hi,
While testing Boost.GIL library [1] with gcc and clang, I noticed a
peculiar issue.
One particular test is failing with lang 5.x while passing with total of 15-17
other versions of clang and GCC (total workflow of CircleCI with at [2]).
Below is extracted minimal program equivalent to Boost.G
