alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
Missed this patch somehow: it was in a wrong part of my dashboard =\
LG. Thanks for the fix.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init.cpp:94
@@ +93,3 @@
+ bool Bool{false};
+ // CHECK-FIXES: bool Bool{false};
+};
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> flx wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Why is this checking a fix? I thought that point was that this should not
> > > generate any diagnostic (and hence, no fix is required)?
> > If I understood Alex correctly, CHECK-FIXES is needed to check for the
> > absence of a change made by ClangTidy. But I agree it seems unlikely to
> > have a change without a warning message which will trigger a test failure
> > at any rate.
> @alexfh, what are your thoughts on this? It seems like we should be able to
> test negative fixes, like with CHECK-NOT, except CHECK-FIXES-NOT or some such?
I usually ask people to add CHECK-FIXES in case when there is a warning that
could change some code, but shouldn't. When there's no warning that is likely
to touch some code, there's no need for a CHECK-FIXES to verify this.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
