similar to: clang-tidy standalone

I needed to clean someone else code and run it through tidy.source. It encountered a number of hangups which after some experimentation lead me to suspect that the culprit is # symbol when it is a part of literal string. For example if i copy the following to the clipboard confuse.tidy <-    function() {   txt <- 'abra # cadabra' } and run with default arguments >tidy.source()

First, I love this bot:) It makes LLVM's "pushing to master" practise less awful:) Now the main topic... > clang-tidy: fail. Please fix clang-tidy findings. For example, on https://reviews.llvm.org/D72103#1801916 , merge_guards_bot reports clang-tidy findings of existing code, not just the modified code. I think https://github.com/google/llvm-premerge-checks should use

Hi, all, I build clang-tidy by "ninja clang-tidy", but when I run below command, I get no checks. Where is the clang-diagnostic* checkers? Thanks in advance. > $ /Users/zyg/Documents/workspace/llvm-project/llvm/cmake-build-debug/bin/clang-tidy --checks="-*,clang-diagnostic-*" --list-checks No checks enabled.

I'm a bit confused by this whole discussion. clang-format is neither mandated (by documentation) nor enforced (by any infrastructure/automation) for use in the LLVM project that I know of. It's convenient, and in review people may reasonably ask authors to consider running it, etc - but we have no system that requires or checks for that. Might be nice, might not be. It sounds like even

Hi everyone, I would like to start a discussion about enforcing use of clang-tidy (or better clang-tidy-diff) on patches before sending it to review. I like how clang-format simplified sending patches and reviews, e.g. "Use clang-format" instead of giving long list of lines that should be formatted by reviewer. I believe that clang-tidy can be also be very helpful here. Note that by

We want to modify the aforementioned check so that it does not flag the exceptions that aren't nothrow copy constructible/assignable. This page http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/#using-clang-tidy tells me to dump the configs of all the checks using %clang-tidy -checks=* -dump-config but it does not mention the cert-err60-cpp. How do I modify the configuration of this check so that it

So, I have a directory of symlinks that I''m managing and Tidy doesn''t seem to be doing much for me in there. Does Tidy ignore symlinks for some reason? If not, does anyone have the correct syntax? Thanks, Trevor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To

Hi, all, I am planning to add clang-tidy checkers for my company. How to add a new module for my company? Please help, thanks in advance. I try to copy files from cert module, and rename cert to Misra, then add a rule named "m-0-1-1" by ./add_new_checker.py. then I run ninja check-clang-tool, but my case is failed due to below error Running ['clang-tidy',

Is there an r-tidy program? something that works similar to perl tidy? http://perltidy.sourceforge.net/ which takes program code and reformats white space with standard indentations and spacing? I did find a ruby based rtidy, but that is for html formatting. // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><

Hello all, I am trying to use the tidy type to clean up a directory that I use for running scripts via puppet. My relevant manifest looks like: tidy { "/root/.puppet/" : age => ''30D'', path => ''/root/.puppet/'', recurse => true, rmdirs => true, type => atime, } However, when I run puppet it

There have been some efforts recently to use clang-tidy or similar automated refactoring to make project-wide cleanups/improvements to the LLVM codebase that appear to me to be a bit out of character with the sort of changes & philosophies that have been applied in the past. I think there are a few issues at hand which I'll try to summarize: * Churn/blame-convenience: Previously, large

The patches contain some tidy-up work, and refactoring that has arisen as a by-product of my initial work on adding TV support to nv50. Best Regards Joel Holdsworth -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-drm-nouveau-Removed-unneeded-include-in-nvc0_fence.c.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 726 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi, Say I''ve got a directory full of stale Tomcat temp files of the form: /usr/local/blackboard/apps/tomcat/work/Catalina/localhost/webapps_assessment/strts6866.tmp and I want to delete any files that haven''t changed in a week and not keep any backup. Should this get rid of them: tidy {

So, for this test case: extern "C" void shouldBeUnconditional(); extern "C" void shouldBeConditional(); extern "C" void otherCall(); void testFn(bool Bool1, bool Bool2) { Bool1 |= Bool2; shouldBeUnconditional(); if (Bool1) shouldBeConditional(); if (Bool2) { otherCall(); if (Bool1) otherCall(); } } MSVC generates this buggy asm: $ cl -c

Hi, A few tests seem broken for a long time, some for more than a month. Would it possible for respective owners to take a look please? I'm at checkout 133a7e631cee97965e310f0d110739217427fd3d, compiling on Windows 10. These tests fail with Visual Studio 2019: Failing Tests (7): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/checkers/cert-mem57-cpp-cpp17.cpp Clang Tools ::

The crazy clang-format folks have taught it to sort includes, and clang-tidy has a nice way to run it across all of LLVM and Clang. Before I just submit the fixes (and any bug reports to the clang-format folks if it sorts things weirdly) I wanted to double check that folks would be ok with this. My understanding is that the sorting should match the LLVM conventions, but if not, I'll make sure

Hi all, I''d like to clean up a temp. directory (files and subdirs within), but even the directory should be preserved, e.g.: tidy { "/var/trash": age => ''1m'', recurse => true, type => atime, rmdirs => true } This does not only remove the content of /var/trash with an atime greater 1m, but also /var/trash . How

I'm in the process of writing a clang-tidy check that concerns the position of the "const" keyword. The check should either enforce "T const" or "const T", based on a flag. Naturally, this should extend to all sorts of variations and qualifiers, e.g., X<const T&, Y const*> const&. My approach is to first find the right AST matcher expression to flag

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:14 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:05 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > There have been some efforts recently to use clang-tidy or similar > automated refactoring to make project-wide cleanups/improvements to the > LLVM codebase that appear to me

I have been tidying up the VorbisComment page in the XiphWiki. The problem with it was that it was a mixture of proposals and discussion of those proposals. This made it difficult for implementers to see what to implement. The problem section is: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/VorbisComment#New_ENCODER_field_name_proposal This is a mess, and all I could do was add attributions to the