[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

shafik added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/LexerUtils.cpp:273 +return Lexer::findLocationAfterToken(NoexceptLoc, tok::r_paren, SM, + LangOpts, true); + To conform with [burprone-argume

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

Dinistro added a comment. Sorry for the noise. I didn't pull in between the different runs and was still on the broken version. Thanks for fixing this issue :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

nemanjai added a comment. In D148697#4422642 , @PiotrZSL wrote: > In D148697#4422629 , @nemanjai > wrote: > >> It was also causing PPC bots to break. I fixed it in >> https://reviews.llvm.org/rGffd7a200fdfbd01ef

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added a comment. In D148697#4422629 , @nemanjai wrote: > It was also causing PPC bots to break. I fixed it in > https://reviews.llvm.org/rGffd7a200fdfbd01ef296101647d2f2da91ddfd41 O, thank you. Thats explain a lot. Because when I look into cmak

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

nemanjai added a comment. In D148697#4421739 , @Dinistro wrote: > In D148697#4421643 , @PiotrZSL > wrote: > >> @Dinistro It compiles & links with clang 16 also (shared libs). So I'm >> unable to reproduce. > > I

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added a comment. In D148697#4421739 , @Dinistro wrote: > In D148697#4421643 , @PiotrZSL > wrote: > >> @Dinistro It compiles & links with clang 16 also (shared libs). So I'm >> unable to reproduce. > > I

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

Dinistro added a comment. In D148697#4421643 , @PiotrZSL wrote: > @Dinistro It compiles & links with clang 16 also (shared libs). So I'm unable > to reproduce. I used the following command to build: cmake -S/home/christianu/repos/llvm-project/llvm -

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

Dinistro added a comment. In D148697#4421420 , @PiotrZSL wrote: > In D148697#4421339 , @Dinistro > wrote: > >> In D148697#4421268 , @PiotrZSL >> wrote: >> >>> In D148697

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added a comment. @Dinistro It compiles & links with clang 16 also (shared libs). So I'm unable to reproduce. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697 _

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added a comment. In D148697#4421339 , @Dinistro wrote: > In D148697#4421268 , @PiotrZSL > wrote: > >> In D148697#4420359 , @Dinistro >> wrote: >> >>> I'm gettin

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

Dinistro added a comment. In D148697#4421268 , @PiotrZSL wrote: > In D148697#4420359 , @Dinistro > wrote: > >> I'm getting a linking error by some of the files changed in this revision. > > You shouldn't because

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added a comment. In D148697#4420359 , @Dinistro wrote: > I'm getting a linking error by some of the files changed in this revision. You shouldn't because this library got dependency on clangTidyPerformanceModule. Is this a blocker for you, or yo

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

Dinistro added a comment. I'm getting a linking error by some of the files changed in this revision. ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: vtable for clang::tidy::performance::NoexceptDestructorCheck >>> referenced by NoexceptDestructorCheck.h:26 (/home/christianu/repos/llvm-project/clang-tools-

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG474a2b9367ad: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept (authored by AMS21, committed by PiotrZSL). Repository: rG LLVM

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/NoexceptSwapCheck.cpp:21 + Finder->addMatcher( + functionDecl(unless(isImplicit()), unless(isDeleted()), hasName("swap")) + .bind("decl"), PiotrZSL wrote: > i dont th

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 updated this revision to Diff 531005. AMS21 marked 3 inline comments as done. AMS21 added a comment. Implement the suggested changes Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697 Files: clang-to

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:193 +- New alias :doc:`cppcoreguidelines-noexcept-destructor + ` to + :doc`performance-noexcept-destructor you got spelling wrong in these, its clang-tidy, not tify Repositor

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL accepted this revision. PiotrZSL added a comment. +-LGTM Only one thing that could be still done here, is to extract some base class from those checks, and move common code there. I will commit this tomorrow, so if you decide to change anything you can still do that, if not you can alw

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 added a comment. Patch is now open for 2+ weeks. If there are no more reviews, I would kindly ask for someone to push this on my behalf. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 updated this revision to Diff 526327. AMS21 added a comment. Removed unrelated change Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697 Files: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/CppCoreG

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 updated this revision to Diff 526326. AMS21 marked 2 inline comments as done. AMS21 added a comment. Rename `cppcoreguidelines-noexcept-move-constructor` to `cppcoreguidelines-noexcept-move-operations` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

PiotrZSL accepted this revision. PiotrZSL added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. On first glance, looks fine, but I didn't check it too deep. Leave it open for 1-2 weeks. I will try to check it more deeply. One thing that I see and do not like is duplication, maybe we c

[PATCH] D148697: [clang-tidy] Add more checks for functions which should be noexcept

AMS21 added a comment. Bumping to ask for reviews Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148697 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https: