steveire added a comment. In D69764#2867109 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2867109>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> In D69764#2863648 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2863648>, @owenpan wrote: > >> Has this been tested against a large code base? It also needs an unqualified >> LGTM before it can be merged. > > D105701: [clang-format] test revision (NOT FOR COMMIT) to demonstrate > east/west const fixer capability <https://reviews.llvm.org/D105701> > demonstrates transforming clang-format itself to east const. > > Actually transformation of the whole of the clang subfolder is actually > holding up pretty well. I'm not seeing an violations (not sure if I > transformed all the files) but certainly so much so that creating a review > that covered all of it was way too big. > > Testing on a large code base can be hard especially one as large as LLVM > where its not currently fully clang-formatted in the first place. > > Of course the lit tests get mangled as the test code gets swapped but the > //CHECK-FIXES doesn't > > Like I mentioned before, by gut feeling is that this option is MOST useful in > preventing violation to your current style from creeping in than going to the > extreme of transforming a whole project from east to west or vice versa. FYI - I also tested this on a large codebase at work. It is now used to keep the current style as you describe. Should any known failure modes be documented? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
