@alexfh, do you still have any objections?

Why not just use clang-tidy-diff.py? The clang-tidy-diff.py script has a distinct and somewhat self-documenting name and a very specific purpose (find clang-tidy regressions in a patch), while run-clang-tidy.py is more focused on running over larger bodies of code with a purpose of analyzing or cleaning up. Is there any benefit in having all functionality in run-clang-tidy.py?

Gentle ping.

Added a test.

In D59449#1446839, @thakis wrote:

Can we delete clang-tidy-diff.py with this? (Or delete most of its contents and make it forward to this script?)

In D59449#1435032, @alexfh wrote:

How is this functionality different from the clang-tidy-diff.py script with the -j option being added in the other patch?

Any comments?

One more gentle ping.

Gentle ping.

• honest '--export-fixes': multiple yamls are merged into the resulting one.
• minor cosmetic fixes.

• -j is 1 by default;
• fixed minor remarks;

Any comments?

-j and -export-fixes were made mutually exclusive.

I only say this because I think I might have seen it happen when I was running run-clang-tidy.py over a large code base with a fairly aggressive check/fixit, but frankly I was too new to LLVM to know it wasn't something I might have done wrong.

In D57662#1392509, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

Just a question.. If clang tidy is running with -fix in parallel, what stops each clang-tidy invocation altering a common header at the same time?

Gentle ping.

Fixed minor typos.

In D52971#1262200, @ymandel wrote:

Hi,

It looks like this change has disabled FileCheck for all clang-tidy lit tests that don't use check-prefixes. So, they all trivially pass even if their CHECK... lines are wrong. An easy repro is just to randomly modify any CHECK line in a lit file (e.g. llvm/tools/clang/tools/extra/test/clang-tidy/readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls.cpp) and run ninja check-clang-tools.

In check_clang_tidy.py, if you add back (slightly modified) lines 93-95 to the else branch (line 132), it seems to fix the problem. For example, add:

has_check_fixes = check_fixes_prefixes[0] in input_text
has_check_messages = check_messages_prefixes[0] in input_text
has_check_notes = check_notes_prefixes[0] in input_text

In D52971#1257702, @JonasToth wrote:

I think it would make sense to migrate one test already, to use the new capability

• Fixed diagnostics;
• Interchangeable alias introduced: -check-suffixes for -check-suffix.

In D52971#1257705, @alexfh wrote:

Looks good with a comment.

In D52971#1257702, @JonasToth wrote:

The change looks good in principle. I think it would make sense to migrate one test already, to use the new capability and check if everything works as expected. The current tests still run fine?

Removed "," from the list of allowed suffix characters.

In D45776#1253944, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Did this intentionally omit the possibility to pass a group of prefixes, like FileCheck supports?
Usefulness of this feature is somewhat penalized by this.

In D45776#1251256, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Did this intentionally omit the possibility to pass a group of prefixes, like FileCheck supports?
Usefulness of this feature is somewhat penalized by this.

In D50852#1202774, @lebedev.ri wrote:

1. Please always upload all patches with full context.
2. There already is modernize-use-auto. Does it handle this case? Then this should be just an alias to that check. Else, i think it would be best to extend that one, and still alias.

• More accurate place to fix.

Alexander, can you please have a look at the latest patch? Thanks.

• Fix for templated type names. Thanks AlexanderK for pointing.

Thanks Alexander for your feedback!