dstenb added a comment. In D114034#3136057 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114034#3136057>, @mattbeardsley wrote:
> @dstenb - wanted to check with you too to make sure that this change to > pr37091.cpp seems like it won't interfere with the original intent of the > test (https://reviews.llvm.org/D45686 ) > > The lingering file issue you'd fixed seemed to be independent of any > particular clang-tidy check, but if not, hopefully it can at least get away > with not relying on the top-level .clang-tidy anymore! Thanks for asking! Yes, I think that the issue was seen independently of the checks used. We saw that issue originally with clang-tidy invocations with explicit -checks arguments (specifying clang-analyzer-* and some more checks). So, I guess that just specifying some check here should be fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114034/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114034 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
