Sounds good. Just to be clear, you plan to delete the code from clang-tidy, then take the code from clang-format and move it to clang-tidy, and have clang-format call clang-tidy (or otherwise share the code somehow so they both use the same implementation)?
I may still try to implement cross-block reordering in clang-tidy because it's the only way to do it in such a way that it just warns you but doesn't apply fixits, or applies them only if it doesn't break the compile, which is what I need at the moment. But since this is just experimental anyway, it probably shouldn't matter much. And if I end up getting something that works reasonably well, we can always move that code over to clang-format if we want to support cross-block reordering there. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:17 AM Daniel Jasper <djas...@google.com> wrote: > I haven't read the patch, but if Alex is ok, so am I.. just wanted to make > sure that we don't spend much more time on this, as we are likely going to > remove most of the code.. > > On Aug 12, 2016 6:42 PM, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > >> Ahh, I see. Just to be clear, is there an LGTM to get this path in? I >> know alexfh@ lgtm'ed it, want to make sure you're ok with this too. >> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM Daniel Jasper <djas...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> The check's implementation will be replaced by a simple call to clang >>> tidy. It will remain a check in clang tidy to continue to cater to both use >>> cases. >>> >>> On Aug 12, 2016 6:19 PM, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That's actually the reason I think it makes more sense in clang tidy. >>>> It can be a configuration option, off by default, and since there is more >>>> control over whether to apply fixits, and it doesn't apply fixits by >>>> default, it would be easier to iterate on the experimental nature of it >>>> without messing up code >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> alexfh added a comment. >>>>> >>>>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434#513839, @djasper wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I think we got confused. We once had tried to write an experimental >>>>> separate check to comply with Google's style guide. If you want to fiddle >>>>> around with that, contact me, I can send you pointers. But as I mentioned >>>>> we moved away from that. And I think it makes more sense to re-create the >>>>> sort-across-blocks functionality in clang-format and not in clang-tidy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yep, we definitely got confused. That experimental check actually >>>>> implemented cross-block sorting, but this caused a bunch of issues. Which >>>>> makes me think that proper implementation of cross-block include sorting >>>>> is >>>>> challenging be it in clang-format or clang-tidy. Clang-format probably >>>>> makes it even more complex, since a higher safety of transformations is >>>>> expected from it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
