xgsa added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/nolintnextline.cpp:23
+
+// NOLINTNEXTLINE without-brackets-skip-all, another-check
+class C5 { C5(int i); };
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> Ian confused now. The NOLINTNEXTLINE with incorrect parents should not
> silence the diagnostic, should it?
>
> In my understanding the following line should cause the explicit constructor
> check to warn. Is that check message missing or did I get something wrong?
Without parentheses, it works just as `NOLINTNEXTLINE` (i.e. suppresses all the
diagnostics for line), because it's impossible to distinguish check names from
user comments after `NOLINTNEXTLINE`:
```
// NOLINTNEXTLINE check-name, another-check
// NOLINTNEXTLINE Some description, why the suppression is added
```
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
