aaron.ballman added a comment. In D101721#2733169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733169>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D101721#2733125 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733125>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> LGTM! One thing I'd like to be sure of though -- do we still have at least >> one test that's showing you can use false/0 and true/1/nonzero >> interchangeably? If not, we should probably have one that shows which >> "alternate forms" are accepted. > > `clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptionsTest.cpp::CheckOptionsValidation::ValidIntOptions` > contains a test which supports 0 and 1. Awesome, thank you for verifying! > However in a few years once we can be confident most users are using > clang-tidy-11 or newer, it may be wise to drop support for 0 and 1 in order > to be inline with yaml completely. I think if we want to go that route (which seems sensible to me), we should start warning on using anything but true/false as being deprecated. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
