[PATCH] D12081: Add use-nullptr check to clang-tidy.

[Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
> > alexfh added a comment.
> >
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12081#234614, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> >> While working on r246209, one of the build bots ran into an issue
> (commented below) that has me slightly perplexed. The build break can be
> found at:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fast/builds/30516
> >
> >
> > Seems to be related to the  -std=c++98 in the test?
>
> That's what I figured as well.
>
> >
> >> What's also strange is that I could not reproduce that failure locally
> (MSVC 2015 debug build, Windows 10)...
> >
> >
> > That's strange. Maybe there's some command-line argument parsing magic
> when targeting windows?
>
> That's what I'm slightly more concerned by. I will investigate in the
> morning on my machine and see what I come up with.
>
> >
> >
> > ================
> > Comment at: test/clang-tidy/modernize-use-nullptr-basic.cpp:2
> > @@ +1,3 @@
> > +// RUN: $(dirname %s)/check_clang_tidy.sh %s modernize-use-nullptr %t
> -- \
> > +// RUN:   -std=c++98 -Wno-non-literal-null-conversion
> > +// REQUIRES: shell
> > ----------------
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> >> Sorry for bringing this up later, but how is this test supposed to
> work? nullptr is not a valid C++98 construct, and so I don't think we
> should be recommending fixes to use nullptr in this case. Is there a reason
> this test case is using -std=c++98 instead of -std=c++11?
> > Looks like a mistake. It should be -std=c++11. But while the check
> wasn't looking at LangOpts, it didn't make any difference, because we don't
> try to compile the fixed code.
>
> Okay, glad it's just a mistake. When I recommit my patch, I'll correct
> this RUN line.
>

Apparently, I was wrong. Some of the constructs in the test file fail to
compile in c++11. So maybe we should allow the check to run in c++98 mode:
to migrate the constructs that otherwise wouldn't compile. It still makes
sense to require C++, I guess.


>
> Thanks!
>
> ~Aaron
>
> >
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12081
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150828/43808ae0/attachment.html>