aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/StrCatAppendCheck.cpp:82
+ if (Call->getNumArgs() == 1) {
+ diag(Op->getBeginLoc(), "call to absl::StrCat does nothing");
+ return;
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> please use 'absl::StrCat' in the diagnostics (same below) to signify that it
> is code.
"does nothing" is not quite correct either; it does something, just not what
the user expects. How about `call to 'absl::StrCat' has no effect`?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/StrCatAppendCheck.cpp:91-92
+ diag(Op->getBeginLoc(),
+ "please use absl::StrAppend instead of absl::StrCat when appending to "
+ "an existing string")
+ << FixItHint::CreateReplacement(
----------------
This wins the award for "kindest diagnostic message". :-D How about: `call
'absl::StrAppend' instead of 'absl::StrCat' when appending to a string`?
That said, the diagnostic doesn't say *why* the code is wrong in the first
place. The documentation doesn't really go into it either. Is it a correctness
issue, a performance issue, something else?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51061
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
