jroelofs marked an inline comment as done. jroelofs added a comment. In D74669#1878168 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74669#1878168>, @njames93 wrote:
> I have a feeling this check should be called something along the lines of > bugprone-suspicous-include. That's a much better name, I like it. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/misc/NoIncludeCPPCheck.cpp:62 + Check.diag(HashLoc, "suspicious #include") + << FixItHint::CreateReplacement(FilenameRange, + ((IsAngled ? "<" : "\"") + FileName + ---------------- njames93 wrote: > This replacement is dangerous, I have a feeling no fix-it should be provided > or at least do a search of the include directories to see if file you are > trying to include actually does exist. The correct file could be `*.hpp` like > what boost uses for all its header files Yeah, perhaps the FixIt should only be added if there is a single candidate replacement that exists on the `-I` path. Another option is to not add FixIts at all, and instead emit a list of `note:`s suggesting each of the candidates. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74669/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74669 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
