njames93 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-no-escape.m:1 +// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-no-escape %t + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Can you add an additional RUN line so we get coverage of the blocks-enabled > behavior? Something like: > ``` > // RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-no-escape %t -- -- -fblocks -x c > ``` > I'm not 100% certain I have that syntax right, but the idea is to run the > test as though it were a C compilation unit with blocks explicitly enabled. check_clang_tidy will add `-fobjc-abi-version=2`, `-fobjc-arc` and `-fblocks` if the file extension is `.m` or `.mm`. You can trick it with `assume-filename` to stop that happening ``` // RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s -assume-filename=bugprone-no-escape.c bugprone-no-escape %t -- -- -fblocks ``` Not 100% certain that is the right syntax but that feels like the designed way to run the test as a C compilation unit Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82904/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82904 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
