aaron.ballman added a comment. In D69145#1748733 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69145#1748733>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D69145#1748716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69145#1748716>, @poelmanc wrote: > > > In D69145#1715611 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69145#1715611>, @mgehre wrote: > > > > > Exactly due to the issue you are fixing here, we ended up disabling the > > > complete check because we didn't want to live with the warnings it > > > produced on -Wextra. > > > Therefore, I'm actually strongly in favor to enable the option by > > > default. > > > > > > When others see that clang-tidy fixits introduce warnings (with -Wextra) > > > or even break their build (with -Werror), they might not look into check > > > options, but just disable the check directly. > > > > > > Just pinging to see if anyone has any thoughts on moving forward with this. > > Thanks in advance for any feedback! > > > If this would default to off i'd signoff. It sounds like you and @mgehre would like a different default for the new option? Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the default, but I do think we should have the option so that users can control the behavior so it doesn't conflict between clang-tidy and gcc. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69145/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69145 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
