aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29692#676559, @AlexanderLanin wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. As I'm new to this I cannot say whether checking > only the file in question fits better with clang-tidy’s policy or not. > Also, I’m not sure about ODR. Of course, it’s a possibility, but isn’t the > programmer responsible for that? This will be more of an issue as soon as > this check provides a Fix-It solution. It's still an issue without the FixIt because the diagnostic guides the user to do something that may make their well-formed code into ill-formed (no diagnostic required!) code. I think the correct way to handle this is to ensure we don't diagnose macro definitions that exist in a header file, at least for C++ code. > As for the other part, I've checked some guidelines (without any order or > selection process) > MISRA C++: Don’t use `#define`, use `const` variables; Also don’t do math on > enums > CppCoreGuidelines: Don’t use `#define`, use `constexpr` variables > SEI CERT C++: No mention of `#define` as far as I can tell > JSF AV C++: Don’t use `#define`, use `const` variables > HIC++: Don’t use `#define`, use `const` objects (reference to JSF AV C++ and > MISRA C++) > > So basically they're all the same. The only question is `const` vs `constexpr` I don't think the guidance in this check is incorrect, I just think the check is implemented too broadly. As for 'const' vs 'constexpr', such a decision may differ when compiling in C vs C++ mode. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29692 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
