omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#509896, @compnerd wrote:
> If the argument really is that we want to minimize the tools then Id argue > that `clang-rename` also belongs in `clang-tidy` as it would be used to > rename fields to match the naming convention (tidying up your code base). It does not belong to `clang-tidy`. `clang-tidy` is a linter, it is meant for diagnosing and fixing typical programming errors. > `clang-tidy` could work, but it does seem to be introducing a completely new > concept into `clang-tidy` AFAICT. It has so far only done equivalent > changes. This operation doesn't guarantee equivalence: if you are doing a > `reinterpret_cast` or a C-style cast, that will no longer work as the object > layout has changed. > > We could merge both tools into `clang-tidy`, or perhaps we can hold off on > that for the wider discussion, and allow this to make progress in the mean > time. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
