[PATCH] D34449: [clang-tidy] Enable constexpr definitions in headers.

[Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hokein added a comment.

Have thought this a bit more, I misunderstood your patch previously (sorry for that).

I think what you intend to do is to ignore C++17 `inline variables` in headers, am I correct?



================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-definitions-in-headers.hpp:1
-// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-definitions-in-headers %t
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-definitions-in-headers %t -- -- -std=c++1z
 
----------------
hokein wrote:
> The original code should work as `-std=c++11` will be added defaultly by `check_clang_tidy` script.
`constexpr` variables have internal linkage, which should be detected for the current check (but the test case is missing this kind of case).

If you want to test `inline` variables, I'd suggest adding a new test file like `misc-definitions-in-headers-1z.hpp` which includes cases of inline variables.


================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-definitions-in-headers.hpp:180
+class CE {
+  constexpr static int i = 5; // OK: constexpr definition.
+};
----------------
hokein wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This is not as safe as you might think. As-is, this is fine, however, if the class is given an inline function where that variable is odr-used, you will get an ODR violation.
> > 
> > I think it's mildly better to err on the side of safety here and diagnose.
> I think the current code (Line `97` in `DefinitionsInHeadersCheck.cpp`) has already guaranteed this case. Can you try to run it without your change in the `DefinitionsInHeadersCheck.cpp`?
> 
> I think it still makes sense to add `constexpr` test cases.
> 
>   
In C++17, `constexpr static int i` is an inline variable, which is fine to define in C++ header -- because `inline` specifier provides a facility allowing definitions (functions/variables) in header that is included in multiple TUs. Additionally, one of the `inline variable` motivations is to support the development of header-only libraries, you can find discussions in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4424.pdf.

Therefore, I'm +1 ignore the inline variables (the same as inline functions). 


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D34449