aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500#1015208, @jdemeule wrote:
> 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)? I'd keep the test cases, as they're good examples for us to ensure we don't regress. 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
