jakehehrlich added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/AddVisibilityCheck.cpp:26
+
+// AST_MATCHER(FunctionDecl, isInHeaderFile) {
+// return Node.getExplicitVisibility(NamedDecl::VisibilityForType);
----------------
What are these comments doing here?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/AddVisibilityCheck.cpp:49
+ Vis = DefaultVisibility;
+ else
+ llvm::errs() << "Invalid visibliity attribute: " << VisAttr << "\n";
----------------
What about internal?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/AddVisibilityCheck.cpp:64
+ Names.end())),
+ unless(hasVisibilityAttr(Vis))))
+ .bind("no-visibility"),
----------------
Something in the list that simply has explicit visibility should pass I think.
For instance saying you have a blacklist of symbols instead of a whitelist.
Sometimes internal or hidden might be used but we might want to add "hidden" by
default. So "Vis" might be DefaultVisibility but we don't want to raise an
error/change something labeled with internal visibility to hidden.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43392
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
