[PATCH] D12961: Update clang-tidy documentation.

[Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits]

alexfh added a comment.

Thank you for converting the docs!

Some of the usages of "transform" and "transformation" in these docs refer to "clang-modernize transform", and, thus, should be replaced with "check" or "clang-tidy check". I tried to find all such places. See comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-loop-convert.rst:226
@@ +225,3 @@
+
+While most of the transform's risk analysis is dedicated to determining whether
+the iterator or container was modified within the loop, it is possible to
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-loop-convert.rst:234
@@ +233,3 @@
+level since calling a member function of the container is considered `risky`.
+The transform cannot identify expressions associated with the container that are
+different than the one used in the loop header, therefore the transformation
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-pass-by-value.rst:7
@@ +6,3 @@
+directly by value, instead of by const-reference, and then copy. This
+transformation allows the compiler to take care of choosing the best way to
+construct the copy.
----------------
s/transformation/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-pass-by-value.rst:37
@@ +36,3 @@
+Since `std::move()` is a library function declared in `<utility>` it may be
+necessary to add this include. The transform will add the include directive when
+necessary.
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-auto-ptr.rst:29
@@ +28,3 @@
+Since `std::move()` is a library function declared in `<utility>` it may be
+necessary to add this include. The transform will add the include directive when
+necessary.
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-auto-ptr.rst:35
@@ +34,3 @@
+* If headers modification is not activated or if a header is not allowed to be
+  changed this transform will produce broken code (compilation error), where the
+  the headers' code will stay unchanged while the code using them will be
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:56
@@ +55,3 @@
+
+The transform will only replace iterator type-specifiers when all of the
+following conditions are satisfied:
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:131
@@ +130,3 @@
+=================
+* If the initializer is an explicit conversion constructor, the transform will
+  not replace the type specifier even though it would be safe to do so.
----------------
s/transform/check/

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-nullptr.rst:41
@@ +40,3 @@
+
+By default this transform will only replace the ``NULL`` macro and will skip any
+user-defined macros that behaves like ``NULL``. The user can use the
----------------
s/transform/check/


Repository:
  rL LLVM

http://reviews.llvm.org/D12961