Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. In D71001#1769429 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769429>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> In D71001#1769394 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769394>, @Eugene.Zelenko > wrote: > > > With such logic, Clang-tidy is maintenance burden: 368 unaddressed request > > in Bugzilla is very telling. > > > Doesn't that just prove the point that we already have a problem with too > many bugs in existing checkers, and adding more checkers is only going to > make the situation worse? I don't think that adding new check will hurt Clang-tidy. After all author may observe such coding patterns in some code bases. Indeed, it'll be reasonable to run this check on LLVM and other big open source projects. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
