flx added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#423140, @flx wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419905, @flx wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419830, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > Is it a workaround to avoid breaking the code by incorrect fixes? > > > > > > Yes. We can't simply change the type of DeclStmt when we only look one of > > the VarDecls and how it is initialized. > > > Also, all tests still pass. Alex, do you have any particular concern with > this approach? In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#423286, @alexfh wrote: > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#423140, @flx wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419905, @flx wrote: > > > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419830, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > > > Is it a workaround to avoid breaking the code by incorrect fixes? > > > > > > > > > Yes. We can't simply change the type of DeclStmt when we only look one of > > > the VarDecls and how it is initialized. > > > > > > Also, all tests still pass. Alex, do you have any particular concern with > > this approach? > > > Even if we can't easily provide an automated fix (we could teach the check to > split declarations, but it might not worth the effort), we could still emit a > warning. WDYT? Sounds good. Done. We now still issue the warning, but don't issue fixes when it's not a single decl. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
