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:
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 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