aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdServer.cpp:120 + // clangd doesn't replay those when using a preamble. + "-llvm-header-guard"); + static const std::string CrashingChecks = ---------------- sammccall wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > sammccall wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > njames93 wrote: > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > I suspect there are more checks that should be added here. For > > > > > > instance, much of `modernize-` is purely stylistic so it's easy to > > > > > > view as being false positives (like > > > > > > `modernize-use-trailing-return-types` or whatever it's called). > > > > > I don't think that's what this list is for. This seems to be purely > > > > > for checks that don't run properly or crash inside clangd. > > > > > `modernize-use-trailing-return-types` is a very noisy check but > > > > > that's how it is when ran as normal clang-tidy. > > > > Ah, thank you for the explanation. Then how about > > > > `UnusableWithinClangd` or something other than `FalsePositives` for the > > > > name? > > > The whole list is of checks that aren't usable in clangd, FalsePositives > > > is the specific reason. What's the problem with the name? > > > What's the problem with the name? > > > > If this is a list of checks that should be disabled because they have a ton > > of false positives, I think the name is fine and the list is incomplete. If > > this is a list of checks that should be disabled because they're not > > well-supported in clangd specifically, I think the name is misleading and > > the list is fine. > > If this is a list of checks that should be disabled because they're not > > well-supported in clangd specifically, I think the name is misleading and > > the list is fine. > > Fair enough - I think there's enough context to not need to repeat "in > clangd" here though. This code is in clangd, in a function with a comment > indicating that it's for checks that don't work well specifically in clangd. > (Maybe s/not suitable to be run through clangd/don't work well in clangd/ > though). > Fair enough - I think there's enough context to not need to repeat "in > clangd" here though. This code is in clangd, in a function with a comment > indicating that it's for checks that don't work well specifically in clangd. > (Maybe s/not suitable to be run through clangd/don't work well in clangd/ > though). That makes sense to me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
