kuhar marked 2 inline comments as done. kuhar added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEmplaceCheck.cpp:93 + to(functionDecl(hasName("::std::make_pair")))) + )))) + .bind("make_pair")); ---------------- Prazek wrote: > JonasToth wrote: > > is the new line here necessary? i think it looks better if the `.bind` is > > on this line. > Better question is "is it clang formated?" It was clang-formatted, but I do agree that it looked a bit weird. I removed the extra newline. ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/modernize-use-emplace.cpp:284 + // CHECK-FIXES: v.emplace_back(42LL, 13); + + v.push_back(std::make_pair<char, char>(0, 3)); ---------------- Prazek wrote: > I would add here test like: > > class X { > X(std:;pair<int, int> a) {} > }; > > std::vector<X> v; > v.push_back(make_pair(42, 42)); > > I guess as long as X ctor is not explicit this can happen, and we can't > transform it to > emplace.back(42, 42) Nice idea for a test case, added. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32395 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits