| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sosedada |
Posted - Dec 18 2025 : 10:28:49 AM
I have a love/hate relationship with this inspection. I love removing unnecessary headers (I might be a little obsessed in our large 30 year old codebase), but the false positives are so frustrating!
The most common cause is templates. So many complaints about <vector>, <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>, or one of our common `class Foo: XMLPersistent<Foo>` patterns claiming the XMLPersistent header is unnecessary.
I figured this was already on a todo list, but then remembered what they say about assuming. I look forward to being able to move this to my Level 1 category that I just automatically do whenever I see one appear (which would be another feature request for me).
LMK if you need more specific details. |
| 1 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| feline |
Posted - Dec 18 2025 : 11:55:40 AM
Do you have a simple code sample that shows a false positive? That would be helpful.
We are using clang-tidy for Code Inspection, and sometimes the "bad" behaviour is coming from clang-tidy its self. Other times there is a bug in our implementation. So these things need to be considered on a case by case basis.
I am not seeing an open bug report for this, which looks to be the check "misc-include-cleaner". I know people have mentioned it, but without an actual reproducible bug to study, I am not going to rush to put in a bug report for this. |
|
|
