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

[Gábor Horváth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

xazax.hun added inline comments.


================
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:
> 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.
It looks like `-std=c++11` is not added. 


================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-definitions-in-headers.hpp:180
+class CE {
+  constexpr static int i = 5; // OK: constexpr definition.
+};
----------------
hokein wrote:
> 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). 
Unfortunately, the test will fail without this modification, but I modified it to ignore inline variables, which is a way better approach indeed. 


https://reviews.llvm.org/D34449