alexfh added a comment. Thanks, that's better. Still a couple of comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/MisplacedArrayIndexCheck.cpp:50 @@ +49,3 @@ + diag(ArraySubscriptE->getLocStart(), + "unusual array index syntax, usually the index is inside the []"); + ---------------- I'd say "confusing" instead of "unusual". This would also help avoiding the repetition ("unusual ..., usually ..."): "confusing array index syntax; usually, the index is inside the brackets" ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/MisplacedArrayIndexCheck.cpp:54 @@ +53,3 @@ + // a fixit for. + if (hasMacroID(ArraySubscriptE) || + !Result.SourceManager->isWrittenInSameFile(ArraySubscriptE->getLocStart(), ---------------- What exactly is the recursive `hasMacroID` function trying to prevent? Do you have a test that breaks if you just check that the start location of the expression is not a macro? In most cases, it's enough to check that the whole range is on the same macro expansion level using `Lexer::makeFileCharRange` in order to prevent most problems with macros, while allowing fixes in safe cases, e.g. replacements in parameters of `EXPECT_*` macros from gtest. https://reviews.llvm.org/D21134 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits