janosbenjaminantal added a comment. In D85697#2339055 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697#2339055>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I tend to be very skeptical of the value of checks that basically throw out > entire usable chunks of the base language because the check is effectively > impossible to apply to an existing code base. Have you run the check over > large C++ code bases to see just how often the diagnostic triggers and > whether there are ways we might want to reduce false-positives that the C++ > Core Guidelines haven't considered as part of their enforcement strategy? No, I haven't checked over large C++ code bases, but I will do this. > Btw, one fear I have with this check is that the automated fixits are > somewhat risky -- unscoped vs scoped enumerations has ABI implications and > changing from one to the other may break the ABI. I am not familiar with these specific ABI implications, if you could help me with some keywords/references/link to start to investigate, I am happy to deep dive into it. I am also willing to discard the automated fixes if it makes this review better. What do you think? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D85697 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
