aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/hicpp/NoAssemblerCheck.cpp:46 + + diag(ASMLocation, "do not use inline assembler in safety-critical code"); +} ---------------- jbcoe wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > jbcoe wrote: > > > Should this message use text taken directly from the HICPP rules? > > The wording from HICPP rule is too wishy-washy to be used as a diagnostic, > > IMO. It just says it "should be avoided". I think the current wording is > > reasonable. > Should we remove 'in safety-critical code'? That's not HICPP's reason for > banning it, they appeal to portability, and the module is no longer called > 'safety'. > > I'm happy with a shortened message or the message as is. Hmmm shortening it isn't a bad idea, but it should probably get its own review (it's largely independent of these changes). Would you like to make a review for it once I land this, or do you think it should be done as part of this commit? https://reviews.llvm.org/D31128 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
