hokein added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-definitions-in-headers.hpp:1 -// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-definitions-in-headers %t +// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-definitions-in-headers %t -- -- -std=c++1z ---------------- The original code should work as `-std=c++11` will be added defaultly by `check_clang_tidy` script. ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-definitions-in-headers.hpp:180 +class CE { + constexpr static int i = 5; // OK: constexpr definition. +}; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > This is not as safe as you might think. As-is, this is fine, however, if the > class is given an inline function where that variable is odr-used, you will > get an ODR violation. > > I think it's mildly better to err on the side of safety here and diagnose. I think the current code (Line `97` in `DefinitionsInHeadersCheck.cpp`) has already guaranteed this case. Can you try to run it without your change in the `DefinitionsInHeadersCheck.cpp`? I think it still makes sense to add `constexpr` test cases. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34449 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits