njames93 added a comment. In D84924#2446075 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84924#2446075>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D84924#2184132 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84924#2184132>, @njames93 wrote: > >> This is very much a work in progress >> Another direction I was thinking was only apply the fixes found in notes if >> there is exactly one fix attached to the notes in a diagnostic, instead of >> just applying the first one we find > > I was wondering the same thing here myself. If there's exactly one fix, then > it's unambiguous as to what behavior you get. One (minor) concern I have > about the current approach is with nondeterminism in diagnostic ordering > where different runs may pick different fixes for the same code. I don't > *think* we have any instances of this in Clang or clang-tidy, but users can > add their own plugins (for instance to the clang static analyzer) that may > introduce some small risk there. Do you have a reason why you picked one > approach over the other? Part of the reason for this approach is from this bug report https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47971, where its pointed out that clang diags gets fix-its added in notes if the fixes will change behaviour or they aren't sure its going to actually fix the issue. As clang-tidy also applies fixes reported from clang, it is wise to adhere to a similar level caution. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84924/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84924 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
