janosbenjaminantal added a comment. In D85697#2209272 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697#2209272>, @njames93 wrote:
> Is 'over-unscoped' really needed in the name, would just 'prefer-scoped-enum' > be better, WDYT? > > For the case of macro, you can check if the location is a macro using > `SourceLocation::isMacroID()`. > > For this to work you would also need to check every single usage of the the > values in the enum to make sure they are converted to use the scoped access. > You're best bet would be to actually store a map indexed by unscoped enum > decls with a set of all their locations and maybe a flag to say if the fix > can be applied or not. > For instance a fix couldn't be applied if any of the usages or decls are in > macros. > This map could then be checked using the `endOfTranslationUnit` virtual > method, with all the diags and fixes being spawned there. Yes, it is better without 'over-unscoped'. I will change this. I checked how other checks are dealing with macros, but I haven't found anything useful. Your idea sounds good, I will try to implement it. - Fix not just the declarations, but also the enum usages - Fix only the enums that are not declared/used in macros As I am totally new to llvm, it might take a few days to come with a proper solutions, but I will do my best. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
