Re: [PATCH] D19865: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for decl stmts with single VarDecl.

2016-05-12 Thread Felix Berger via cfe-commits
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL269389: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for… (authored by flx). Changed prior to commit: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865?vs=56573=57130#toc Repository: rL LLVM

Re: [PATCH] D19865: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for decl stmts with single VarDecl.

2016-05-11 Thread Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits
alexfh accepted this revision. alexfh added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LG. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D19865: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for decl stmts with single VarDecl.

2016-05-09 Thread Felix Berger via cfe-commits
flx removed rL LLVM as the repository for this revision. flx updated this revision to Diff 56573. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865 Files: clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyInitialization.cpp clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyInitialization.h

Re: [PATCH] D19865: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for decl stmts with single VarDecl.

2016-05-09 Thread Felix Berger via cfe-commits
flx added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#423140, @flx wrote: > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419905, @flx wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419830, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > Is it a workaround to avoid breaking the code by incorrect fixes? > > > > > > Yes. We can't

Re: [PATCH] D19865: [clang-tidy] - PerformanceUnnecesaryCopyInitialization - only trigger for decl stmts with single VarDecl.

2016-05-05 Thread Felix Berger via cfe-commits
flx added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419905, @flx wrote: > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19865#419830, @alexfh wrote: > > > Is it a workaround to avoid breaking the code by incorrect fixes? > > > Yes. We can't simply change the type of DeclStmt when we only look one of the >