-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.4k
[clang-tidy][modernize] Replace memmove/memcpy with std::copy #122940
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
removed typo on files sort imports removed some typo solve linter reports update modernize-replace-memcpy-with-stdcopy.rst
(commit serves as proof of work for course credit :)) ) [skip ci]
[skip ci]
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
|
can you update |
|
@kadircet Does the file need further changes from what I've already added? |
probably yes, it'd be great if you can just run https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/clangd/TidyFastChecks.py to generate the edits |
|
@kadircet I ran the script but it seems that my check was one of the few that did not get updated (see last commit in PR), is this normal? |
Closes #22583
As pointed out in the discussion under the linked issue, the semantics of this check are a little tricky to pin down exactly so this version offers a little less than I'd like and hoping someone with more experience could help.
Other notes:
First contribution so I'd say it will need some post-review fixes