Summary:
Some of the misc checks belong to readability/. I'm moving them there
without changing check names for now. As the next step, I want to register some
of these checks in the google and llvm modules with suitable settings (e.g.
BracesAroundStatementsCheck). I'm not sure if we want to create a "readability"
module, probably not.
Reviewers: djasper
Reviewed By: djasper
Subscribers: curdeius, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5792
llvm-svn: 219786
This check looks for if statements and loops: for, range-for, while and
do-while, and verifies that the inside statements are inside braces '{}'.
If not, proposes to add braces around them.
Example:
if (condition)
action();
becomes
if (condition) {
action();
}
This check ought to be used with the -format option, so that the braces be
well-formatted.
Patch by Marek Kurdej!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5395
llvm-svn: 218898
As this is very dependent on the code base it has some ways of configuration.
It's possible to pick between 3 modes of operation:
- Line counting: number of lines including whitespace and comments
- Statement counting: number of statements within compoundStmts.
- Branch counter
In addition a threshold can be picked, warnings are only emitted when it is met.
The thresholds can be configured via a .clang-tidy file.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4986
llvm-svn: 217768
Summary:
class Foo {
Foo() {
Foo(42); // oops
}
Foo(int);
};
This is valid code but it does nothing and we can't emit a warning in clang
because there might be side effects. The checker emits a warning for this
pattern and also for base class initializers written in this style.
There is some overlap with the unused-rtti checker but they follow different
goals and fire in different places most of the time.
Reviewers: alexfh, djasper
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4667
llvm-svn: 214397
ASTMatchers currently have problems mixing bound TypeLoc nodes with Decl/Stmt
nodes. That should be fixed soon but for this checker there we only need the
TypeLoc to generate a fixit so postpone the potentially heavyweight AST walking
until after we know that we're going to emit a warning.
This is covered by existing test cases.
Original message:
[clang-tidy] Add a check for RAII temporaries.
This tries to find code similar that immediately destroys
an object that looks like it's trying to follow RAII.
{
scoped_lock(&global_mutex);
critical_section();
}
This checker will have false positives if someone uses this pattern
to legitimately invoke a destructor immediately (or the statement is
at the end of a scope anyway). To reduce the number we ignore this
pattern in macros (this is heavily used by gtest) and ignore objects
with no user-defined destructor.
llvm-svn: 213738
Summary:
This tries to find code similar that immediately destroys
an object that looks like it's trying to follow RAII.
{
scoped_lock(&global_mutex);
critical_section();
}
This checker will have false positives if someone uses this pattern
to legitimately invoke a destructor immediately (or the statement is
at the end of a scope anyway). To reduce the number we ignore this
pattern in macros (this is heavily used by gtest) and ignore objects
with no user-defined destructor.
Reviewers: alexfh, djasper
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4615
llvm-svn: 213647
This looks for swapped arguments by looking at implicit conversions of arguments
void Foo(int, double);
Foo(1.0, 3); // Most likely a bug
llvm-svn: 212942
The goal is to find code like the example below, which is likely a typo
where someone meant to write "if (*b)".
bool *b = SomeFunction();
if (b) {
// b never dereferenced
}
This checker naturally has a relatively high false positive rate so it
applies some heuristics to avoid cases where the pointer is checked for
nullptr before being written.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4458
llvm-svn: 212797
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
Alexander Kornienko