aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192#1226312, @steveire wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192#1226282, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > I'd probably pipe the diagnostic output to a temporary file that gets > > FileChecked with strict whitespace to see if the underlines from the > > diagnostic match the expected locations. We do this in a few Clang tests, > > like SemaCXX\struct-class-redecl.cpp or Misc\wrong-encoding.c. > > > Doesn't this require building-in a new check to clang-tidy which exists only > for the purpose of the test? Otherwise how would a test similar to > `SemaCXX\struct-class-redecl.cpp` work? What would be in the `RUN` line? Oh, I had the impression that this was changing the behavior of existing checks in the tree as well, and that we'd have an existing clang-tidy check that exhibits the problematic behavior. Is that not the case? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
