carlosgalvezp added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/modernize-use-override.cpp:56
virtual ~SimpleCases();
- // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:11: warning: prefer using 'override' or
(rarely) 'final' instead of 'virtual' [modernize-use-override]
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:11: warning: prefer using 'override' or
(rarely) 'final' instead of 'virtual'
// CHECK-FIXES: {{^}} ~SimpleCases() override;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This isn't quite what I was after; now it looks like we expect to always get
> the diagnostic (in fact, I'm a bit worried that this test is passing). I'd
> rather see:
> ```
> // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:11: warning: prefer using 'override' or
> (rarely) 'final' instead of 'virtual' [modernize-use-override]
> // CHECK-CPPCOREGUIDELINES-NOT: :[[@LINE-2]]:11: warning: prefer using
> 'override' or (rarely) 'final' instead of 'virtual'
> ```
> So that we check explicitly we see the diagnostic for modernize and
> explicitly that we don't see the diagnostic for C++ Core Guidelines.
>
> You'll need to change the second RUN line to not use `check_clang_tidy` but
> instead execute clang-tidy manually so you can pass
> `-check-prefix=CHECK-CPPCOREGUIDELINES` to it (as done in
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cert-static-object-exception.cpp#L4).
Not sure I follow. What you propose is something that would make sense _before_
this patch, when the `cppcoreguidelines` check was _different_ than
`modernize`. But now they are not, they are identical, so we expect to get
identical diagnostics from them. Or am I missing something obvious?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111041/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111041
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
