njames93 added a comment.
In D126859#3599340 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859#3599340>, @kadircet wrote:
> I also agree with the typo correction verdict. In theory there'll be two
> cases:
>
> - typo correction helps, in which case it'll be obvious from the warning
> itself.
> - typo correction doesn't help, because the option doesn't exist at all,
> we'll be just showing a random option. I don't think how this'll be helpful.
>
> So I don't think this is providing much of a value compared to the extra
> logic.
The correction only shows near misses, so it wouldn't show completely random
options.
However it's only really there to prevent you having to look at the
documentation for the check, so I'm happy to remove it.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TidyProvider.cpp:291
+ static void *call() {
+ return new tidy::NamesAndOptions(tidy::getAllChecksAndOptions(false));
+ }
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > it seems strange that clang-tidy provides this API to query what checks are
> > linked in, but it constructs an expensive object every time rather than
> > just creating a static one once and returning a reference to it. (i.e. the
> > memoization is on the caller side)
> > Should we fix that API instead?
> +1
The clang-tidy API is still a WIP. but it doesn't really make sense to memoize
it on the tidy side as its s function that is only ever going to be called once
in clang-tidy.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
