m4tx marked an inline comment as done. m4tx added a comment. In D55793#1333723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793#1333723>, @riccibruno wrote:
> In D55793#1333691 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793#1333691>, @m4tx wrote: > > > Don't use `CXXRecordDecl::accessSpecs()`, use unique comments in tests. > > > Thanks! `CXXRecordDecl` is already huge and so adding iterators for a single > checker is in my opinion not a good idea (especially if the alternative is > actually less code). > Would it make sense to also issue a diagnostic where the first access > specifier is redundant (ie `public` in a `struct`, and `private` in a > `class`) ? Yes, I was thinking about the same thing! However, I believe that some people may find this kind of "redundant" access specs actually more readable, so maybe it makes sense to add a check option for this to allow users to disable it? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
