Jun 21 2019
Jun 20 2019
Jan 20 2019
Sorry, forgot to use the magic line at the end of the commit message to auto-close this review. Done in r351686, anyhow.
I also noticed I forgot to clang-format the testcase, done now.
Jan 19 2019
Jan 11 2019
Jan 10 2019
@aaron.ballman do you wait for someone else to commit this? Thanks.
Jan 3 2019
Could you please review this one? It would be especially helpful, due to the depending other review. Thanks!
Dec 24 2018
Dec 21 2018
Dec 19 2018
Ping, could this be reviewed, please? :-) Thanks!
Dec 8 2018
Next ping -- could you please review this one? Thanks! :-)
Nov 26 2018
Could you please review this at some stage? As mentioned previously, this is a dependency for D54349. Thanks!
Nov 16 2018
I think this check is in good shape for the initial commit. Additional functionality can be added incrementally.
Nov 14 2018
Oh, and running the check-clang-tools target, this currently results in:
As far as I see GCC warns on these 3 things.
Nov 11 2018
As it stands, I feel like this check is a bit too simplistic to have much value, but if you covered some of these other cases, it would alleviate that worry for me.
Nov 10 2018
What do you think about code like:#if FOO == 4 #if FOO == 4 #endif #endif #if defined(FOO) #if defined(FOO) #endif #endif #if !defined(FOO) #if !defined(FOO) #endif #endif
Nov 9 2018
preprocessor directives? Same in documentation.
I think that name is not very descriptive for the user of clang-tidy. pp
should be preprocessor or some other constellation that makes it very clear
its about the preprocessor.
No one will know for sure what "pp" in "readability-redundant-pp" means.
I'd highly recommend to fully spell it out.
I've used this check originally on LibreOffice (core, online) code and it found a handful of not necessary ifdef / ifndef lines. It seemed it's simple and generic enough that it would make sense to upstream this.
Oct 21 2018
LGTM, but could you please add a short notice in the release notes?
Oct 19 2018
In practice cppunit's CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE_END macro triggers this problem.
Oct 13 2018
Oct 12 2018
Mar 19 2018
Mar 17 2018
Updated patch now includes the first run-clang-tidy.py testcase. :-)
Most of the tests that use a compilation database are located under llvm/tools/clang/test/Tooling/. These tests create a directory with source file(s) and a corresponding compile_commands.json file and then just run the tool on these file(s).
Mar 13 2018
I've went with failed_files. And yes, this could be a simple reference, I just exploit the fact here that a list is passed by reference in Python.
Mar 12 2018
I grepped for run-clang-tidy under tools/clang/tools/extra/test/clang-tidy/, but found nothing, so I assume run-clang-tidy has no test coverage at the moment.
Mar 11 2018
Jan 5 2018
Jan 4 2018
That changes the defaults though. I thought clang-tidy *tried* to produce the same results
on different clang-tidy versions with the same .clang-tidy config? Or is there no such guarantees?
Jan 3 2018
Sep 11 2017
Sep 8 2017
Jun 2 2017
May 31 2017
@klimek ping, do you have any further comments, please?
May 17 2017
Manuel, do you have any further comments, please? Thanks.