[PATCH] D90180: [clang-tidy] find/fix unneeded semicolon after switch

Sat Nov 7 05:35:39 PST 2020

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D90180#2379803 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2379803>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:

> In D90180#2375878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2375878>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
>> In D90180#2374839 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2374839>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
>>
>>> In D90180#2357247 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180#2357247>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>>>
>>>> This will reduce the amount of compilation overhead for the clang-tidy project over time by not needing to introduce a new check (with new boilerplate) for each scenario but should hopefully still allow you to do what you need (with config files perhaps) in your CI. WDYT?
>>>
>>> I don't see how renaming the check changes "compilation overhead" or why we think "compilation overhead" of clang tidy is a concern in this case?
>>
>> I meant that if we had distinct checks `linuxkernel-switch-semi`, `linuxkernel-for-loop-semi`, `linuxkernel-middle-of-nowhere-semi`, etc that each one of those checks would require their own header file, source file, test files, documentation, etc. whereas if we had a single check, we'd reduce that overhead by only having one header, one source, one documentation, etc using config options, which makes fetching or building clang-tidy go ever-so-slightly faster.
>
> Ah, so you're recommending that future checks related to additional/extraneous semicolons also be placed in this check, rather than their own?  I don't have a problem with that.

Yup!

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90180