[PATCH] clang-tidy checker that enforce proper parentheses in macros

[Alexander Kornienko]

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#176182, @danielmarjamaki wrote:

> > The main concern is the noisiness of the check: it makes sense to look at a bigger sample of results and see whether the warning should be silenced in more cases.
>
>
> Do you have a suggestion how I share the results?


Well, there are many convenient ways to do this. You can use Google Docs, for example.


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroParenthesesCheck.cpp:77
@@ +76,3 @@
+          !Tok.is(tok::minus) && (TI + 1) != TE &&
+          (TI + 1)->is(tok::numeric_constant) && (TI + 2) == TE) {
+        return;
----------------
danielmarjamaki wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > `TI + 2 == TE` implies `TI + 1 != TE`. I'd also put it next to `TI == MI->tokens_begin()`.
> Yes that is implied. But are you sure it's not UB? I wanted to avoid undefined behaviour when creating an out-of-bounds pointer (calculating TI+2 without checking TI+1). is the buffer always padded with extra elements after TE?
Why does the buffer need to be padded with something when you compare iterators without dereferencing them? I didn't find any violation of the preconditions for random access iterators (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concept/RandomAccessIterator).

http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/