one disadvantage to clang format is that you have less control over how and whether to apply fixits. Reordering across blocks has a higher risk of breaking code, and you can't tell clang format to only apply fixits which don't break code, or to not apply any fixits but just warn.<br><br>Code duplication is always bad, but maybe we could find a way to share code between the two so that they share the same algorithm. <br><br>I'm not opposed to trying to add cross block reordering to clang format, but killing the clang tidy check entirely breaks my use case, and since the current patch is strictly a bugfix should be fine to commit it right?<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:50 AM Daniel Jasper <<a href="mailto:djasper@google.com">djasper@google.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">djasper added a comment.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>