aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/modernize/UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck.cpp:430 + AT->getKeyword() == AutoTypeKeyword::Auto && + !hasAnyNestedLocalQualifiers(F->getDeclaredReturnType())) + return; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > bernhardmgruber wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Why do we need to check that there aren't any nested local qualifiers? > > Because I would like the check to rewrite e.g. `const auto f();` into `auto > > f() -> const auto;`. If I omit the check for nested local qualifiers, then > > those kind of declarations would be skipped. > I'm still wondering about this. > Because I would like the check to rewrite e.g. const auto f(); into auto f() > -> const auto;. If I omit the check for nested local qualifiers, then those > kind of declarations would be skipped. I don't think I understand why that's desirable though? What is it about the qualifier that makes it worthwhile to repeat the type like that? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/modernize-use-trailing-return-type.cpp:1 -// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++14,c++17 %s modernize-use-trailing-return-type %t -- -- -fdeclspec -fexceptions +// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++14-or-later %s modernize-use-trailing-return-type %t -- -- -fdeclspec -fexceptions -DCOMMAND_LINE_INT=int // FIXME: Fix the checker to work in C++20 mode, it is performing a ---------------- bernhardmgruber wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > The change to the language standard line makes me wonder if the fixme below > > it is now stale, or if the test will fail in C++20 mode. > I just ran the tests again using `python .\check_clang_tidy.py -std=c++20 > .\checkers\modernize-use-trailing-return-type.cpp > modernize-use-trailing-return-type aa -- -- -DCOMMAND_LINE_INT=int` and I did > not see mentioning of the use of an uninitialized variable. But I run on > Windows, maybe the issue just surfaces on another OS? Is there a way to > trigger the CI again? > > I removed the FIXME in question in the hope the issue resolved itself. > But I run on Windows, maybe the issue just surfaces on another OS? Is there a > way to trigger the CI again? I also run on Windows so I can't easily test the behavior elsewhere for you. The CI will get triggered on new patch uploads, but I still don't always trust it. The bots are usually a more reliable source of CI truth but we have no way to speculatively trigger all the bots. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80514/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80514 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
