aaron.ballman added reviewers: alexfh, njames93, hokein, whisperity. aaron.ballman added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: rnkovacs.
In D113148#3108960 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113148#3108960>, @Sockke wrote: > In D113148#3108705 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113148#3108705>, @CJ-Johnson > wrote: > >> In D113148#3107897 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113148#3107897>, @Sockke wrote: >> >>> This seems to be an existing check. Have you compared it with >>> **bugprone-string-constructor**? >> >> Thanks for the suggestion! From what I can tell, bugprone-string-constructor >> check only has warnings and does not provide fixes in most cases. The goal >> of bugprone-stringview-nullptr is to robustly enumerate the many cases that >> it cares about and provide fixes. For that reason, I think making it a >> separate check is best. > > Yes, But i think that improving existing check is the best way. Because > improving bugprone-string-construct in a new check may make developers > confused and cause redundant overlap. > Let's see if @aaron.ballman or @whisperity has any comments? Generally speaking, we prefer to improve the existing checks. I think `bugprone-string-constructor` would probably be a better place for the constructor-related functionality. But that still means we don't have a good place for things like the assignment and comparison functionality, and it seems more useful to keep all of the `string_view`-with-`nullptr` logic in one place. That said, we should be careful we're not too onerous when users enable all `bugprone` checks together. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113148/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113148 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
