Ahh, I see. Just to be clear, is there an LGTM to get this path in? I know alexfh@ lgtm'ed it, want to make sure you're ok with this too.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM Daniel Jasper <djas...@google.com> wrote: > The check's implementation will be replaced by a simple call to clang > tidy. It will remain a check in clang tidy to continue to cater to both use > cases. > > On Aug 12, 2016 6:19 PM, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > >> That's actually the reason I think it makes more sense in clang tidy. It >> can be a configuration option, off by default, and since there is more >> control over whether to apply fixits, and it doesn't apply fixits by >> default, it would be easier to iterate on the experimental nature of it >> without messing up code >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> alexfh added a comment. >>> >>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434#513839, @djasper wrote: >>> >>> > I think we got confused. We once had tried to write an experimental >>> separate check to comply with Google's style guide. If you want to fiddle >>> around with that, contact me, I can send you pointers. But as I mentioned >>> we moved away from that. And I think it makes more sense to re-create the >>> sort-across-blocks functionality in clang-format and not in clang-tidy. >>> >>> >>> Yep, we definitely got confused. That experimental check actually >>> implemented cross-block sorting, but this caused a bunch of issues. Which >>> makes me think that proper implementation of cross-block include sorting is >>> challenging be it in clang-format or clang-tidy. Clang-format probably >>> makes it even more complex, since a higher safety of transformations is >>> expected from it. >>> >>> >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434 >>> >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
