jcai19 marked 4 inline comments as done. jcai19 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-cloexec-pipe2.cpp:20 + pipe2(pipefd, O_NONBLOCK); + // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:27: warning: 'pipe2' should use O_CLOEXEC where possible [android-cloexec-pipe2] + // CHECK-FIXES: pipe2(pipefd, O_NONBLOCK | O_CLOEXEC); ---------------- gribozavr wrote: > Same comment about the message as in D61967 -- the message should briefly > explain why the user should make this change. Users tend to ignore warnings > they don't understand. > > "pipe2 should be called with O_CLOEXEC to avoid leaking file descriptors to > child processes" It appeared to me that there was no easy way to change the warning message due to the way insertMacroFlag is implemented (called in CloexecPipe2Check::check(...) to add O_CLOEXEC flag when necessary). The function always issue a warning in the format of "%0 should use %1 where possible". So unless we parameterize the warning string (which could be solved by a different code change), we might end up implementing a similar function with different warning message, which creates extra work if we need to modify insertMacroFlag in the future. I am new to Clang so please let me know if there is a better way to udpate the warning message. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62049/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62049 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
