Prazek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#403243, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#403099, @Prazek wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#402657, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > This strikes me as something the compiler should diagnose instead of a > > > clang-tidy check. Incrementing a bool has been deprecated for some time, > > > but it is outright removed in C++17, so I think giving users a migration > > > path as part of the compiler would be far more beneficial. What do you > > > think? > > > > > > clang already warns about it, but I don't think it has good fixits. > > > What clang diagnostic flags this issue? I'd rather make sure it provides good > fixits than as a clang-tidy check that does almost the same. Clang-tidy can > be configured to run Clang diagnostics and it will happily apply fixes if > asked to. -Wdeprecated-increment-bool does it. But what I see from SemaExpr.cpp in CheckIncrementDecrementOperand, it doesn't have any fixits. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
