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:
The goal is to reduce false positives when the difference is intentional, like:
foo(StringRef name);
foo(StringRef name_ref) {
string name = cleanup(name_ref);
...
}
Or semantically unimportant, like:
foo(StringRef full_name);
foo(StringRef name) { ... }
There are other matching names we won't recognise (e.g. syns vs synonyms) but
this catches many that we see in practice, and gives people a systematic
workaround.
The old behavior is available as a 'Strict' option.
Subscribers: xazax.hun, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49285
llvm-svn: 336992
And also enable it by default to be consistent with e.g. modernize-use-using.
This helps e.g. when running this check on client code where the macro is
provided by the system, so there is no easy way to modify it.
Reviewers: alexfh, piotrdz, hokein, ilya-biryukov
Reviewed By: alexfh
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41716
llvm-svn: 321913
Summary:
The goal of the patch is to bring checkers in their appropriate namespace.
This path doesn't change any behavior.
Reviewers: alexfh
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19811
llvm-svn: 268264
This is first of series of patches, porting code from my project colobot-lint,
as I mentioned recently in cfe-dev mailing list.
This patch adds a new check in readability module:
readability-inconsistent-declaration-parameter-name. I also added appropriate
testcases and documentation.
I chose readability module, as it seems it is the best place for it.
I think I followed the rules of LLVM coding guideline, but I may have missed
something, as I usually use other code formatting style.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12462
Patch by Piotr Dziwinski!
llvm-svn: 247261
Chandler Carruth