MyDeveloperDay marked an inline comment as done. MyDeveloperDay added a comment.
In D55433#1349709 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55433#1349709>, @JonasToth wrote: > No problem, thats why we test on real projects first, because there is always > something hidden in C++ :) > > Is there a test for the lambdas? test/clang-tidy/modernize-use-nodiscard.cpp line 158 (which is how it manifested inside LLVM) as a lambda assigned to an auto ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp:106 + isVariadic(), hasTemplateReturnType(), + hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(isLambda())), + hasClassMutableFields(), ---------------- JonasToth wrote: > what happens for nested lambdas? > `hasParent` should be avoided if possible, as the `clangd` folks are > currently implementing partial traversal to only analyze "the latest change". > If you can, please rewrite that without `hasParent` I'll not deny I wasn't sure how to do this one, and totally stole the idea from another checker fuchsia/TrailingReturnCheck.cpp: hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(isLambda()))))) > hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(isLambda())), Given that the matcher is on all CXXMethodDecl, I couldn't quite see how I could determine the CXXMethodDecl was in a lambda, without going to the parent {F7804868} without it I'd get ``` const auto nonConstReferenceType = [] { return true; }; ``` transformed to ``` const auto nonConstReferenceType = [[nodiscard]] [] { return true; }; ``` Which whilst probably true, made for some ugly reading.. not sure about nested lambdas...sounds even harder! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55433/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55433 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
