[PATCH] D23434: Don't allow llvm-include-order to intermingle includes from different files.
Zachary Turner via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 12 09:42:37 PDT 2016
Ahh, I see. Just to be clear, is there an LGTM to get this path in? I
know alexfh@ lgtm'ed it, want to make sure you're ok with this too.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com> wrote:
> The check's implementation will be replaced by a simple call to clang
> tidy. It will remain a check in clang tidy to continue to cater to both use
> On Aug 12, 2016 6:19 PM, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> That's actually the reason I think it makes more sense in clang tidy. It
>> can be a configuration option, off by default, and since there is more
>> control over whether to apply fixits, and it doesn't apply fixits by
>> default, it would be easier to iterate on the experimental nature of it
>> without messing up code
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
>>> alexfh added a comment.
>>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434#513839, @djasper wrote:
>>> > I think we got confused. We once had tried to write an experimental
>>> separate check to comply with Google's style guide. If you want to fiddle
>>> around with that, contact me, I can send you pointers. But as I mentioned
>>> we moved away from that. And I think it makes more sense to re-create the
>>> sort-across-blocks functionality in clang-format and not in clang-tidy.
>>> Yep, we definitely got confused. That experimental check actually
>>> implemented cross-block sorting, but this caused a bunch of issues. Which
>>> makes me think that proper implementation of cross-block include sorting is
>>> challenging be it in clang-format or clang-tidy. Clang-format probably
>>> makes it even more complex, since a higher safety of transformations is
>>> expected from it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits