chh added a comment. Some Android developers and legacy code care less about clang-tidy warnings. Newer developers spend a lot of time to get lint-free new code. So Android source tree has a lot of clang-tidy flags like header-filter, checks, and warnings-as-errors to select checks for different modules. People are even asking for new features like making header-filter to accept a list of regexp like the checks flag.
If a new change to header-filter or skip-headers lose existing valid warnings, maybe it will be perfectly acceptable to some but not to people who want to make code lint-free. To them, these changes are regressions. A clang-tidy check's owner would not like to lose capability for some minor performance gain, either. bugprone-forward-declaration-namespace is just one valid warning found in a couple of days. Android tree is huge and has disabled many checks, so we won't know the impact to all checks any time soon. If we have a mechanism to keep any special checks from the impact, like the PPCallback-based checks, it will be much safer to release the first phase skip-headers and know that we can fix any bad impact quickly. I am trying such a mechanism to support "see-all-file" MatchFinder-based checks. Those checks will be very few, so skip-headers still saves a lot of runtime. After more tests, I will upload it to D98709 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98709>. Please note that I added a new test skip-headers-2.cpp. It is extremely simplified, but reflects the need to check a top-level Decl and ignore warnings in included nested Decls in other files. If we implement skip-headers based on only top-level Decls, we won't be able to support such a use case. In D98709 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98709>, we check/skip not only top-level Decls. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98710/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98710 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits