aaron.ballman added a comment. In D106431#2896472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896472>, @whisperity wrote:
> In D106431#2896441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896441>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> However, I don't recall how clang-tidy interacts with fix-its on notes off >> the top of my head, so I'm making an assumption that clang-tidy's automatic >> fixit applying mode handles notes the same way as clang and we should >> double-check that assumption. > > I have one information from January that if you're viewing the diagnostic > output as a sequence of `[warning, note, note, ...]` elements (so you "group > by" warning), Clang-Tidy will apply the //first// fix (be it on the warning > or the note) in the order of `diag()` calls. (There was a (never-upstreamed) > check in which I had to abuse this fact.) This behaviour could've changed, > though... > > In D106431#2896441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896441>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Another way forward would be to not issue a fix-it for integers or >> enumerations. > > This might be the best course of action, and could be fixed in the same patch > (this one)... I think that's a reasonable way forward, though I don't insist on changing the integer behavior if others have strong opinions that it is correct. I do have strong opinions on fixing the enumeration behavior because that fix-it is wrong for C++ code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
