njames93 marked 2 inline comments as done.
njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:276
+ // Never ignore these.
+ } else if (!Context.isCheckEnabled(Error.DiagnosticName) &&
+ Error.DiagLevel != ClangTidyError::Error) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Perhaps this is a bad idea, but would it make sense to have
> `isCheckEnabled()` report `true` for `clang-tidy-config`? It's not really a
> check, so that's a bit odd, but it seems like anywhere we're testing this
> property we wouldn't want to ignore config issues?
I didn't personally think that was a good way to go. This is the only real
place its used where you would get isCheckEnabled called with
`clang-tidy-config`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
