whisperity added a comment. In D106431#2896441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896441>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> However, I don't recall how clang-tidy interacts with fix-its on notes off > the top of my head, so I'm making an assumption that clang-tidy's automatic > fixit applying mode handles notes the same way as clang and we should > double-check that assumption. I have one information from January that if you're viewing the diagnostic output as a sequence of `[warning, note, note, ...]` elements (so you "group by" warning), Clang-Tidy will apply the //first// fix (be it on the warning or the note) in the order of `diag()` calls. (There was a (never-upstreamed) check in which I had to abuse this fact.) This behaviour could've changed, though... In D106431#2896441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896441>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > Another way forward would be to not issue a fix-it for integers or > enumerations. This might be the best course of action, and could be fixed in the same patch (this one)... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
