aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71686#1794360 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71686#1794360>, @0x8000-0000 wrote:
> In D71686#1794330 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71686#1794330>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > In D71686#1794053 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71686#1794053>, @0x8000-0000 > > wrote: > > > > > My take: this change fixes a user-reported bug, and does not cause any > > > known regressions. I think we should integrate this. > > > > > > I sort of wonder whether we want to document this as a blessed approach to > > silencing the warning. I'm not certain if it's too obtuse or not, but I > > notice the check has no documented ways to silence the diagnostic aside > > from using the correct kind of magic number or adding it to a list of > > excluded magic numbers. > > > You mean Hyrum's Law <https://www.hyrumslaw.com/> is not sufficient? > > The check can be silenced with the regular NOLINT, or with defining and using > a constant/enum. Using this "backdoor" way seems even more cumbersome and > confusing than the NOLINT. At least with NOLINT it is clear what you're > doing, and somebody else can grep for it and fix it if it is appropriate. My concern is that `NOLINT` is insufficient. Consider: `foo(12, 42, 18);` where the `42 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71686/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71686 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
