hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ConfigCompile.cpp:438
+ .map("Experiment",
+ Config::IncludesPolicy::Strict) // for backward
+ // compatibility
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> i think we should at least be emitting a diagnostics to encourage people for
> moving back to strict, so what about something like:
> ```
> if (F.UnusuedIncludes) {
> auto Val = compileEnum....; // only for Strict and None
> if (!Val && **F.UnusedIncludes == "Experiment") {
> diag(Warning, "Experiment is deprecated for UnusedIncludes, use Strict
> instead.", F.UnusedIncludes.Range);
> Val = Config::IncludesPolicy::Strict;
> }
> }
> ```
I thought it was not worth a diagnostic because this flag was introduced
recently, and we have never advertised it to open-source users.
But the flag is in the recent clangd16 release, so it probably justifies the
value.
BTW, looks like we forgot to update the release notes for clangd16,
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/release/16.x/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst#improvements-to-clangd
is empty.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/IncludeCleaner.cpp:769
- Cfg.Diagnostics.UnusedIncludes == Config::IncludesPolicy::Strict
- ? computeUnusedIncludes(AST)
- : Findings.UnusedIncludes,
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> can you also delete `computeUnusedIncludes` and its friends (also from the
> tests)?
this is in plan, but in a separate patch, https://reviews.llvm.org/D145776
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145773/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145773
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
