On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Samuel Benzaquen <sbe...@google.com> wrote: > sbenza added a comment. > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13510#261925, @aaron.ballman wrote: > >> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13510#261825, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: >> >> > I think it'll be fine to rename check without leaving traces of misc. Same >> > thing happened with modernize-shrink-to-fit. >> >> >> I think the difference here is that many C++ Core Guideline checks are... >> chatty, and so these checks are likely to not be enabled (especially on >> existing code bases). By leaving the check in misc-*, it is more likely to >> provide value to users that aren't able to use the cppcoreguidelines-* >> checks yet. > > > Now that we are registering checks with more than one name, it might be a > good idea to add a dedup step to avoid redundant warnings and/or wasted > resources. > Not on this change but something to consider.
They don't appear to be duplicated when you enable the check multiple times; it seems to take the last registered checker. As an example: http://pastebin.com/RyrNhKNL However, I agree, registering checkers with multiple names does bring up some problems regarding displaying the diagnostics as well as documentation that likely requires a bit more thought. ~Aaron > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D13510 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
