This reverts commit cc56c66f27.
Fixed a bad assertion, the target of a UsingShadowDecl must not have
*local* qualifiers, but it can be a typedef whose underlying type is qualified.
Currently there's no way to find the UsingDecl that a typeloc found its
underlying type through. Compare to DeclRefExpr::getFoundDecl().
Design decisions:
- a sugar type, as there are many contexts this type of use may appear in
- UsingType is a leaf like TypedefType, the underlying type has no TypeLoc
- not unified with UnresolvedUsingType: a single name is appealing,
but being sometimes-sugar is often fiddly.
- not unified with TypedefType: the UsingShadowDecl is not a TypedefNameDecl or
even a TypeDecl, and users think of these differently.
- does not cover other rarer aliases like objc @compatibility_alias,
in order to be have a concrete API that's easy to understand.
- implicitly desugared by the hasDeclaration ASTMatcher, to avoid
breaking existing patterns and following the precedent of ElaboratedType.
Scope:
- This does not cover types associated with template names introduced by
using declarations. A future patch should introduce a sugar TemplateName
variant for this. (CTAD deduced types fall under this)
- There are enough AST matchers to fix the in-tree clang-tidy tests and
probably any other matchers, though more may be useful later.
Caveats:
- This changes a fairly common pattern in the AST people may depend on matching.
Previously, typeLoc(loc(recordType())) matched whether a struct was
referred to by its original scope or introduced via using-decl.
Now, the using-decl case is not matched, and needs a separate matcher.
This is similar to the case of typedefs but nevertheless both adds
complexity and breaks existing code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114251
The previous matcher "hasAnyTemplateArgument(templateArgument())" only
matches the first template argument, but the check wants to iterate all
template arguments. This patch fixes this.
Also some refactorings in this patch (to make the code reusable).
llvm-svn: 370760
Summary:
Motivation/Context: in the code review system integrating with clang-tidy,
clang-tidy doesn't provide a human-readable description of the fix. Usually
developers have to preview a code diff (before vs after apply the fix) to
understand what the fix does before applying a fix.
This patch proposes that each clang-tidy check provides a short and
actional fix description that can be shown in the UI, so that users can know
what the fix does without previewing diff.
This patch extends clang-tidy framework to support fix descriptions (will add implementations for
existing checks in the future). Fix descriptions and fixes are emitted via diagnostic::Note (rather than
attaching the main warning diagnostic).
Before this patch:
```
void MyCheck::check(...) {
...
diag(loc, "my check warning") << FixtItHint::CreateReplacement(...);
}
```
After:
```
void MyCheck::check(...) {
...
diag(loc, "my check warning"); // Emit a check warning
diag(loc, "fix description", DiagnosticIDs::Note) << FixtItHint::CreateReplacement(...); // Emit a diagnostic note and a fix
}
```
Reviewers: sammccall, alexfh
Reviewed By: alexfh
Subscribers: MyDeveloperDay, Eugene.Zelenko, aaron.ballman, JonasToth, xazax.hun, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59932
llvm-svn: 358576
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary:
* Fix a false postive when an using class is used in an explicit template instantiation.
* Fix a false postive when an using template class is used as template argument.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25437
llvm-svn: 283879
function call expression.
Summary:
The check doesn't mark the template argument as used when the template
argument is a template.
Reviewers: djasper, alexfh
Subscribers: klimek, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22803
llvm-svn: 277444
Summary: Make the check's behavior more correct when handling using-decls in multiple scopes.
Reviewers: alexfh
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20909
llvm-svn: 271632
Summary:
We should check whether a UsingDecl is defined in macros or in class
definition, not TargetDecls of the UsingDecl.
Reviewers: alexfh
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20666
llvm-svn: 271199
Sam McCall