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
