array. This simplifies usage of ClangTidyContext a bit and seems to be more
consistent.
Reviewers: klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3685
llvm-svn: 208407
defined in a macro.
Summary:
We shouldn't suggest replacements in macros anyway, as we can't see all
usages of the macro and ensure the replacement is safe for all of them.
Reviewers: klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3611
llvm-svn: 207987
Summary:
The Google C++ Style Guide doesn't require copy constructors to be
declared explicit, but some people do this by mistake. Make this check detect
and fix such cases.
Reviewers: djasper
Reviewed By: djasper
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3541
llvm-svn: 207531
Summary:
This patch implements filtering of clang-tidy diagnostic messages by
the check name, so that "clang-tidy -checks=^llvm-" won't output any clang
warnings, for example. This is also helpful to run specific static-analyzer
checks: static analyzer always needs core checks to be enabled, but the user may
be interested only in the checks he asked for.
This patch also exposes warning option names for built-in diagnostics. We need
to have a namespace for these names to avoid collisions and to allow convenient
filtering, so I prefix them with "-W". I'm not sure it's the best thing to do,
and maybe "W" or "clang-diagnostic-" or something like this would be better.
Reviewers: klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3121
llvm-svn: 204321
This checks that parameters named in comments that appear before arguments in
function and constructor calls match the parameter name used in the callee's
declaration. For example:
void f(int x, int y);
void g() {
f(/*y=*/0, /*z=*/0);
}
contains two violations of the policy, as the names 'x' and 'y' used in the
declaration do not match names 'y' and 'z' used at the call site.
I think there is significant value in being able to check/enforce this policy
as a way of guarding against accidental API misuse and silent breakages
caused by API changes.
Although this pattern appears somewhat frequently in the LLVM codebase,
this policy is not prescribed by the LLVM coding standards at the moment,
so it lives under 'misc'.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2914
llvm-svn: 204113
This removes all references to OwningPtr, which should be fairly
undisruptive to out-of-tree projects since they are unlikely to use
clang-tools-extra as a library instead of a set of tools.
llvm-svn: 203382
Summary:
I'm not absolutely sure this is 100% correct solution, but it seems to
do what I expect.
Reviewers: djasper, klimek
Reviewed By: djasper
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2756
llvm-svn: 201308
always produce as pretty of results as it does in LLVM and Clang, but
I don't mind and the value of having a single canonical ordering is very
high IMO.
Let me know if you spot really serious problems here.
llvm-svn: 198703
This is implemented in a way that the current static analyzer
architecture allows, in the future we might want to revisit this.
With this change static analyzer checks are available from clang-tidy
by specifying -checks=clang-analyzer-<name>.
This change also fixes the use of the compilation database to allow
clang-tidy to be used like any other clang tool.
llvm-svn: 194707
This is the first version of a possible clang-tidy architecture. The
purpose of clang-tidy is to detect errors in adhering to common coding
patterns, e.g. described in the LLVM Coding Standards.
This is still heavily in flux.
Review: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D884
llvm-svn: 187345
Alexander Kornienko