jdemeule added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1013558, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1013497, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Is there a way to make clang-apply-replacements smarter rather than forcing > > every check to jump through hoops? I'm worried that if we have to fix > > individual checks we'll just run into the same bug later. > > > See > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161017/174238.html I was not aware of //cleanupAroundReplacements//. It should be a better option than fixing every check one by one. I am working on adding it on clang-apply-replacement for now and another review will be propose soon. Should we discard this patch or keep only the added tests (if you found them relevant after fixing the comments)? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
