[PATCH] D13071: [PATCH] New checker for mismatched operator new/operator delete definitions

[Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

Thank you for the review!


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/NewDeleteOverloadsCheck.cpp:66
@@ +65,3 @@
+namespace {
+OverloadedOperatorKind GetCorrespondingOverload(const FunctionDecl *FD) {
+  switch (FD->getOverloadedOperator()) {
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly
> 
> > Function names [...] should be camel case, and start with a lower case letter (e.g. openFile() or isFoo()).
Ugh, I always get this backwards because of other parts of the code base that didn't follow the convention. I'll fix.

================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/NewDeleteOverloadsCheck.cpp:168
@@ +167,3 @@
+  SmallVector<const FunctionDecl *, 4> Diagnose;
+  for (const auto *O : Overloads) {
+    const auto &OI = std::find_if(
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> Please don't use "O", "l", "I" as variable names.
I thought this was the correct style for identifiers that do not require descriptive names (we use it *everywhere* in Clang)? I'm not opposed, but I am wondering if clang-tidy has different style guides?

================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/NewDeleteOverloadsCheck.cpp:170
@@ +169,3 @@
+    const auto &OI = std::find_if(
+        Overloads.begin(), Overloads.end(), [&](const FunctionDecl *FD) {
+          if (FD == O)
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> I just noticed that this will be an O(N^2) from all new/delete overloads in all classes in a TU. This should probably be not much usually, but I can imagine a corner-case, where this is going to be slooow. How about sharding these by the enclosing record declaration?
Yes, the O(N^2) is unfortunate, sorry for not calling that out explicitly. I figured that N should be incredibly minimal, however (especially since we only care about *written* overloads that are not placement overloads). So realistically, the maximum that N can be here is 6: operator new(), operator new[](), operator delete(), operator delete[](), and sized operator delete()/operator delete[](). I figured that this wasn't worth complicating the code over since N is bounded.

But I suppose the worry is if you have these operators defined in a a lot of classes in the same TU? In that case, I suppose I could replace SmallVector<FunctionDecl *> Overloads with MapVector<CXXRecordDecl *, FunctionDecl *> Overloads?

================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-new-delete-overloads-sized-dealloc.cpp:6
@@ +5,3 @@
+struct S {
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:8: warning: declaration of 'operator delete' has no matching declaration of 'operator new' at the same scope
+  void operator delete(void *ptr, size_t) noexcept; // not a placement delete
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> nit: Let's include the check name in brackets to the check pattern once.
Can do!


http://reviews.llvm.org/D13071