aaron.ballman added a comment. In D90180#2379803 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2379803>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> In D90180#2375878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2375878>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D90180#2374839 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2374839>, >> @nickdesaulniers wrote: >> >>> In D90180#2357247 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2357247>, @aaron.ballman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This will reduce the amount of compilation overhead for the clang-tidy >>>> project over time by not needing to introduce a new check (with new >>>> boilerplate) for each scenario but should hopefully still allow you to do >>>> what you need (with config files perhaps) in your CI. WDYT? >>> >>> I don't see how renaming the check changes "compilation overhead" or why we >>> think "compilation overhead" of clang tidy is a concern in this case? >> >> I meant that if we had distinct checks `linuxkernel-switch-semi`, >> `linuxkernel-for-loop-semi`, `linuxkernel-middle-of-nowhere-semi`, etc that >> each one of those checks would require their own header file, source file, >> test files, documentation, etc. whereas if we had a single check, we'd >> reduce that overhead by only having one header, one source, one >> documentation, etc using config options, which makes fetching or building >> clang-tidy go ever-so-slightly faster. > > Ah, so you're recommending that future checks related to > additional/extraneous semicolons also be placed in this check, rather than > their own? I don't have a problem with that. Yup! 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
