aaron.ballman added a comment. In D72566#1816109 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566#1816109>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> I think the fact that this is a fourth (?) different incarnation of a patch > trying to solve the same *major* *ugly* problem, it may be an evidence that > perhaps this problem should not be approached from the 'let's hack it > together' > approach, but with a concrete plan sent as an RFC to cfe-dev :/ +1 This is a pretty big part of the user interface for clang-tidy, so I think we need community buy-in on how to proceed. It's not that we think the current interface is perfect, it's more that there are complexities we need to better understand before deciding on a solution. I'd rather get a big picture idea of the design for aliases, how they interact with the command line, documentation, diagnostics, etc to make sure we're hitting all of the important bits. Also, we should make sure that whatever we do is at least someone comparable with the clang static analyzer (I don't know if they have aliases there or not) so that we don't design two totally different approaches to solving the same problem. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
