mboehme marked 5 inline comments as done.
mboehme added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D22220#480415, @mgehre wrote:
> Nice check. This should be mentioned in docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
Done.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MoveForwardingReferenceCheck.cpp:34
@@ +33,3 @@
+ if (CallRange.isValid()) {
+ const std::string ForwardName =
+ "forward<" + TypeParmType->getDecl()->getName().str() + ">";
----------------
Prazek wrote:
> you could probably use llvm::StringRef here, but I am not sure about it - ask
> Alex.
I've talked to Alex -- using a Twine to avoid multiple allocations is the best
I can do here.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-move-forwarding-reference.rst:29
@@ +28,3 @@
+
+Background
+----------
----------------
Prazek wrote:
> Very nice section! good idea.
>
> So I have a thoughts about multiple sections in documentation (which is not a
> issue for you).
> I think the check lists doc should not include sections - it doesn't look
> good and it also prevents people from using sections in docs.
Do I understand correctly that you're not expecting me to change anything here?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D22220
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
