aaron.ballman added a comment. In D90180#2354931 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2354931>, @njames93 wrote:
> Is this not already handled by `-Wextra-semi`. If it isn't I feel like it > should be handled there rather than in clang-tidy Strong +1 -- this is already handled by `-Wextra-semi-stmt` and should not be duplicated in a clang-tidy check. In fact, there's already a fix-it produced by Clang for this: https://godbolt.org/z/xhbfc9 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
