alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
> -Wdeprecated-increment-bool does it. But what I see from SemaExpr.cpp in
> CheckIncrementDecrementOperand, it doesn't have any fixits.
If an automated fix for this issue makes sen
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#419848, @Prazek wrote:
> ping @Alexfh have you check it?
I would still strongly prefer to see this fixed in
`CheckIncrementDecrementOperand` instead of creating an entire clang-tidy check
for it.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
mnbvmar updated this revision to Diff 58940.
mnbvmar added a comment.
Clang-formatted code.
Added a simple macro test.
Resolved @Prazek's issues.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/Incr
Prazek added a comment.
ping @Alexfh have you check it?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Prazek added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#403243, @alexfh wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#403099, @Prazek wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#402657, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> > > This strikes me as something the compiler should diagnose instead of a
> > >
alexfh added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#403099, @Prazek wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#402657, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > This strikes me as something the compiler should diagnose instead of a
> > clang-tidy check. Incrementing a bool has been deprecated for some t
Prazek added a comment.
Besides comments, looks good to me. But before posting make sure that
clang-diagnostics doesn't already have fixits.
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.cpp:51
@@ +50,3 @@
+ // Don't fix if expression type is dependent on template initia
Prazek added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165#402657, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> This strikes me as something the compiler should diagnose instead of a
> clang-tidy check. Incrementing a bool has been deprecated for some time, but
> it is outright removed in C++17, so I think giving us
mnbvmar created this revision.
mnbvmar added reviewers: alexfh, Prazek, staronj, krystyna.
mnbvmar added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.h
aaron.ballman added a subscriber: aaron.ballman.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This strikes me as something the compiler should diagnose instead of a
clang-tidy check. Incrementing a bool has been deprecated for some time, but it
is outright removed in C++17, so I think giving users a migration
10 matches
Mail list logo