steveire added a comment. In D80961#2068865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961#2068865>, @ymandel wrote:
> Thank you for bringing up this issue. I think it highlights an underlying > problem -- editing templates is quite difficult -- that neither setting will > address, as Dmitri expanded on above. Given the parallel to macros, I'd say > your change is better than the status quo. Most clang tidies and other > rewriting tools that I've encountered simply skip code in macro expansions, > rather than reason about how to update the macro definition or whatnot. So, > by that reasoning, we should skip template instantations. Yes, it's generally true for tools that given the choice of 1. possibly making a change which is definitely incorrect (as is currently done by default and as demonstrated in the Transformer test case) 2. not making a particular change meaning the overall change is incomplete (as in Dmitris response) number (2) would always be way to go. I don't think Dmitris objection makes any sense. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80961 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
