LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst:116
`bugprone-virtual-near-miss <bugprone-virtual-near-miss.html>`_, "Yes"
- `cert-dcl21-cpp <cert-dcl21-cpp.html>`_,
+ `cert-dcl21-cpp <cert-dcl21-cpp.html>`_, "Yes"
`cert-dcl50-cpp <cert-dcl50-cpp.html>`_,
----------------
The problem with making this change manually in the `list.rst` is that the next
time someone runs `add_new_check.py`, the change will get lost again unless
someone reviews the diff carefully and reverts the unwanted change. These
manual reversions continue to accumulate and the chances for error increase
with each run of `add_new_check.py`.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that the check name doesn't
correspond algorithmically to the source file that implements the check, which
is how `add_new_check.py` figures out whether or not a check implements fixits
to add `"Yes"` for this column in the generated `list.rst`.
Here are some options I can see (there may be others, discussion welcome):
- Make the "official" check name `cert-postfix-operator` and add
`cert-dcl121-cpp` an alias? This would enable the logic in `add_new_check.py`
to correctly match up the source file for the check to the check name.
- Rename the source file to `Dcl121CppCheck.cpp`, but I don't think that's as
self-documenting as the existing file name.
- Have `add_new_check.py` consult the `xxxModule.cpp` files and scrape out
matching check names to check class names and use the class name to scrape
source files, possibly only when the corresponding source file that matches the
check name doesn't exist.
We should also add comments to `list.rst` to indicate that the file is
processed by a script.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121372/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121372
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
