riccibruno added a comment. In D55793#1333691 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793#1333691>, @m4tx wrote:
> Don't use `CXXRecordDecl::accessSpecs()`, use unique comments in tests. Thanks! `CXXRecordDecl` is already huge and so adding iterators for a single checker is in my opinion not a good idea (especially if the alternative is actually less code). Would it make sense to also issue a diagnostic where the first access specifier is redundant (ie `public` in a `struct`, and `private` in a `class`) ? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55793 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
