Skip to content

Conversation

@Omotola
Copy link
Contributor

@Omotola Omotola commented Jun 17, 2025

Added information for 3 new clang-tidy properties that allow uses to pass extra arguments to the tool and specify number of processes to run.

@prmerger-automator
Copy link
Contributor

@Omotola : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) and reviewer(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

@learn-build-service-prod
Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit 7b8f3c1:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docs/code-quality/clang-tidy.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

@v-dirichards
Copy link
Contributor

@TylerMSFT

Can you review the proposed changes?

Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #sign-off comment is the best way to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

@prmerger-automator prmerger-automator bot added the aq-pr-triaged Tracking label for the PR review team label Jun 17, 2025

## Max Number of Processes

The **Max Number of Processes** property lets you specify how many processes Clang-Tidy can use to run analysis in parallel. By default, Clang-Tidy uses a single processor. Set this property to a specific number to limit the number of parallel processes, or set it to `0` to use all available logical processors on your system. Increasing the number of processes can improve analysis speed on multi-core machines.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm unclear how 'uses a single processor' fits in here. The text seems to say that by default Clang-Tidy uses a single processor, yet you can set the property to a specific number to limit the number of parallel processes. Why would you need to limit it if the default is to run on a single processor?
Maybe the problem here is the difference between a physical processor and logical processes. Would it be correct to instead say something like "Clang-Tidy uses a single processor to run an unlimited number of logical processes in parallel. Set this property to limit the number of processes run in parallel. Set it to 0 to use all available logical processors in your system."

Or is the physical processor a red-herring here? If there are multiple processes, why are they run on a single processor?

At any rate, I'm confused by how a physical processor plays into the logical processors that the property seems to be about. 

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the wording around "limit the number of parallel processes" is where the confusion is. Clang-tidy runs serially by default and this new setting is to enable users run it in parallel. I used the word "limit" to note that if users don't want to set to '0' to use all available processors they can limit the number of processes instead.
What do you think of this wording instead - "By default, Clang-Tidy runs serially. Set this property to enable parallel execution and specify the number of parallel processes. Set it to 0 to use all available logical processors in your system."

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That sounds great to me.

@Omotola Omotola requested a review from TylerMSFT June 19, 2025 02:40
@learn-build-service-prod
Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit 3101e63:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docs/code-quality/clang-tidy.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

@learn-build-service-prod
Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit f82c936:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docs/code-quality/clang-tidy.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Copy link
Collaborator

@TylerMSFT TylerMSFT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Thank you, @Omotola

@TylerMSFT
Copy link
Collaborator

#sign-off

@v-dirichards v-dirichards merged commit 55f79c7 into MicrosoftDocs:main Jun 19, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants