m4tx added a comment.
In D55793#1333661 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793#1333661>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> Please add tests with preprocessor (`#if ...`) that will show that it ignores
> disabled code. e.g.:
>
> class ProbablyValid {
> private:
> int a;
> #if defined(ZZ)
> public:
> int b;
> #endif
> private:
> int c;
> protected:
> int d;
> public:
> int e;
> };
>
Is this actually possible? It seems that macros are ran through the
preprocessor before one can fiddle with them in clang-tidy. In other words,
`int b` is not at all present in the AST. However, I added a code to detect
macro expansions, so duplicated access specifiers are ignored if at least one
of them comes from a macro. If there is a way to cover your case as well,
please let me know, because even after looking at the code of other checks I
haven't found out a solution for this.
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
