In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7318#125262, @mclow.lists wrote:
> I don't have a problem with making this a clang-tidy module, but it was
> (also) meant as an example of how to write a refactoring tool.
Do we now have enough examples of refactoring tools that the example motivation
is no longer a concern?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/RemoveCStrCall.cpp:32
@@ +31,3 @@
+std::string getText(const SourceManager &SourceManager, const T &Node) {
+ SourceLocation StartSpellingLocation =
+ SourceManager.getSpellingLoc(Node.getLocStart());
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> I suspect that most of this method can be replaced to a call to
> clang::Lexer::getSourceText (and this method can return StringRef).
Diff in progress...
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RemoveCStrCall.h:10-11
@@ +9,4 @@
+
+#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_MISC_REMOVE_C_STR_CALL_H
+#define LLVM_CLANG_TOOLS_EXTRA_CLANG_TIDY_MISC_REMOVE_C_STR_CALL_H
+
----------------
Oops, this still says misc
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7318
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
