thanks for the review. can you please land it for me pls? Jorge Pinto Sousa <jorge.pinto.sousa@proton.me>

@PiotrZSL @carlosgalvezp can you please recheck?

In D156624#4545107, @PiotrZSL wrote:

Good, just verify that documentation for this check is still proper, and add entry in release notes about this change.

hi @PiotrZSL, thanks for the review :) can you please land it for me?

while landing it, if someone feels that the release note can/should be reworded please feel free to do so.

Thanks ^^ added the release note. Can someone please land it for me?

have been sick, and could not advance much except I added the tests to replicate the issue. Any ideas on how to proceed here?

In D148276#4288236, @aaron.ballman wrote:

In D148276#4288145, @sousajo wrote:

hey :( I will try to investigate it a bit sometime next week ^^ thanks for pointing it out

Thank you for looking into it! I didn't think about remove_const, remove_cv, etc. when considering test cases, sorry about that!

hey :( I will try to investigate it a bit sometime next week ^^ thanks for pointing it out

kind ping ^^

can someone land it for me pls? Jorge Pinto Sousa <jorge.pinto.sousa@proton.me>

@shafik does it look better now?

cannot reproduce the build failure locally. if this looks fine can someone land it for me? or should we wait until we have a green build after rebase?

• rebased

• inline string to be checked

• removed FormatStyle Style = getLLVMStyle(); as llvm is the default style

As I dont have commit access if someone can land It for me:

In D148354#4269013, @PiotrZSL wrote:

I see you uploaded this path without author attached, should I push this as "Jorge Pinto Sousa <jorge.pinto.sousa@proton.me>" ?

• get rid of whitespace unrelated changes

Add more tests

windows checks are failing, but looks like it is unrelated to this change

rebased

@aaron.ballman should be ok now ^^

Rebased and fix wording of the release note

In D147745#4262386, @aaron.ballman wrote:

In D147745#4262223, @sousajo wrote:

In D147745#4262198, @aaron.ballman wrote:

LGTM with a minor grammar change in the release note (feel free to take it or leave it as you see fit).

Sure I can add it later today. Then one of you would have to land it for me ^^

Thank you for letting us know -- what name and email address would you like us to use for patch attribution?

In D147745#4262198, @aaron.ballman wrote:

LGTM with a minor grammar change in the release note (feel free to take it or leave it as you see fit).

Also agree, imho this is better now and will be fine most of time

Does it look fine now ?

• change AssertExpr->getSourceRange().getBegin() calls to AssertExpr->getBeginLoc()
• same for InnerCond->getSourceRange().getBegin()
• add a couple more tests

I dont have commit access, can someone land it for me?

In D147745#4253763, @tbaeder wrote:

Ah, there is -fcared-diagnostics-max-lines as a cc1 option: https://godbolt.org/z/Y4dW35v7M

Just realized that in the case:

static_assert(
true && 
false);

Added two test cases, and the release note.

In D147745#4252761, @tbaeder wrote:

I think the other Diag call should be changed as well:

./a.cpp:4:15: error: static assertion failed
static_assert(false);
              ^~~~~
./a.cpp:6:1: error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'true && false'
static_assert(true && false);
^             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

rebased

just rebased