vmiklos added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54349#1293622, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> No one will know for sure what "pp" in "readability-redundant-pp" means. > I'd highly recommend to fully spell it out. Will do. > Also, i'd like to see some analysis of the false-positives. Things I considered: - header guards would easily generate "nested ifndef" false positives, so I limited the check to the main file only - if there are nested `#ifdef FOO` .. `#endif` blocks, but FOO is not defined, we fail to detect the redundancy. - I read that in general checks should be careful around templates and macros, but given this deals with the preprocessor, I don't expect issues there. This implicitly means that I'm not aware of actual false positives of the check in its current form. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D54349 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
