njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.cpp:400
+ DiagCallback Handler) {
+ llvm::yaml::Input Input(Config, nullptr, Handler ? diagHandlerImpl : nullptr,
+ &Handler);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> njames93 wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > njames93 wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > njames93 wrote:
> > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > Would it make sense to require `Handler` to be nonnull with an
> > > > > > > assertion?
> > > > > > Wasn't sure which way to go with that one, happy to use an assert
> > > > > > if you think it's a good idea
> > > > > Now that I understand the use for this change better, I think the
> > > > > code is good as-is.
> > > > Whoops, just changed it to assert
> > > Heh, sorry about that! Before changing it again, let's make sure we
> > > agree. My thinking is: this is a general API (rather than a specific one
> > > only to be used internally) and not every caller may care about reporting
> > > diagnostics; the error return code is sufficient to tell any caller
> > > whether the parsing was successful or not.
> > That's pretty much it, For external users. If they don't care about
> > capturing the diagnostics then the `parseConfiguration` function should be
> > used. If they do care and call this new function with an empty callable,
> > they have probably made a mistake.
> Okay, then I apologize for the churn, but can you go back to accepting a null
> input (and a test case for it)? With that, I think the patch LG.
With a null handler, we can't capture any test output to validate anything.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92920/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92920
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
