whisperity marked 3 inline comments as done.
whisperity added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/EasilySwappableParametersCheck.cpp:402-403
+
+ // Unfortunately, undersquiggly highlights are for some reason chewed up
+ // and not respected by diagnostics from Clang-Tidy. :(
+ diag(First->getLocation(), "the first parameter in the range is '%0'",
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > whisperity wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Can you post a screenshot of what you mean?
> > > Given
> > >
> > > ```
> > > Diag << SourceRange{First->getSourceRange().getBegin(),
> > > Last->getSourceRange().getEnd()};
> > > ```
> > >
> > > The diagnostic is still produced with only a `^` at the original
> > > `diag(Location)`, ignoring the fed `SourceRange`:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > /home/whisperity/LLVM/Build/../llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-easily-swappable-parameters-len2.cpp:21:18:
> > > warning: 3 adjacent parameters of 'redeclChain' of similar type ('int')
> > > are easily swapped by mistake [bugprone-easily-swappable-parameters]
> > > void redeclChain(int I, int J, int K) {}
> > > ^
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Instead of putting all the squigglies in as the range-location highlight,
> > > like how `Sema` can diagnose:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > /home/whisperity/LLVM/Build/../llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-easily-swappable-parameters-len2.cpp:21:18:
> > > warning: 3 adjacent parameters of 'redeclChain' of similar type ('int')
> > > are easily swapped by mistake [bugprone-easily-swappable-parameters]
> > > void redeclChain(int I, int J, int K) {}
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I would not want to put additional note tags in an otherwise already
> > > verbose output.
> > >
> > > Back in 2019 I was investigating this issue specifically for another
> > > checker I was working on, but hit the wall... Somewhere deep inside where
> > > Tidy diagnostic stuff is translated and consumed to Clang stuff, it goes
> > > away. It shouldn't, because there are statements that seemingly copy the
> > > `Diag.Ranges` array over, but it still does not come out.
> > >
> > > ... EDIT: I found [[
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-October/063676.html | the
> > > relevant mailing list post ]].
> > > ... EDIT: I found the relevant mailing list post.
> >
> > Oh wow, I had no idea! That's a rather unfortunate bug. :-(
> Speaking of bugs, shall I put it up on Bugzilla, or see if anyone reported
> already? Would require me digging into that "where are the data structures
> copied" kind of thing to figure it out again.
Nevermind, this is worth [[ http://bugzilla.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49000 | a
bug report ]] just so we can track it in the proper location.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
