aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init.cpp:94
@@ +93,3 @@
+ bool Bool{false};
+ // CHECK-FIXES: bool Bool{false};
+};
----------------
flx wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Why is this checking a fix? I thought that point was that this should not
> > generate any diagnostic (and hence, no fix is required)?
> If I understood Alex correctly, CHECK-FIXES is needed to check for the
> absence of a change made by ClangTidy. But I agree it seems unlikely to have
> a change without a warning message which will trigger a test failure at any
> rate.
@alexfh, what are your thoughts on this? It seems like we should be able to
test negative fixes, like with CHECK-NOT, except CHECK-FIXES-NOT or some such?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
