aaron.ballman added a comment. In D111228#3054263 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111228#3054263>, @balazske wrote:
> I think a configuration option that depends on configuration of another check > causes too many problems. It causes dependencies between checks, possible > circular dependency (that is an error). What if the other check is not > enabled (if a check configuration depends on other it may mean that these two > belong together and should both be enabled, or not)? It becomes less clear > from where a value comes. Okay, that make sense to me, thanks! > A probably better way: Define configuration values like "variables" that can > be used at any check, probably with manipulation of the original value. But > not reuse configuration of another check. That might make more sense. Are we agreed that it would be better to solve the larger issue instead of just for this check? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111228/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111228 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
