DmitryPolukhin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.cpp:116-121
+ unsigned Priority = 0;
for (ClangTidyModuleRegistry::iterator I = ClangTidyModuleRegistry::begin(),
E = ClangTidyModuleRegistry::end();
I != E; ++I)
- Options = Options.mergeWith(I->instantiate()->getModuleOptions());
+ Options =
+ Options.mergeWith(I->instantiate()->getModuleOptions(), ++Priority);
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> Is there a reason for incrementing the priority on each successive iteration,
> Seems like a bug that will lead to the later registered modules having higher
> priority for their options.
It seems that you are right and it is just a bug. Modules are registered as
static object in different translation units so there is no guarantee about
their order. But in general I didn't expect conflicting options here. If you
have a diff, I'll be happy to stamp it; if not, I'll create the diff.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75184/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75184
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
