[PATCH] D44602: [clang-tidy] readability-function-size: add VariableThreshold param.

[Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

lebedev.ri added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-function-size.cpp:207-212
+void variables_8() {
+  int a, b;
+  struct A {
+    A(int c, int d);
+  };
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> lebedev.ri wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > I think the current behavior here is correct and the previous behavior was incorrect. However, it brings up an interesting question about what to do here:
> > > ```
> > > void f() {
> > >   struct S {
> > >     void bar() {
> > >       int a, b;
> > >     }
> > >   };
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > Does `f()` contain zero variables or two? I would contend that it has no variables because S::bar() is a different scope than f(). But I can see a case being made about the complexity of f() being increased by the presence of the local class definition. Perhaps this is a different facet of the test about number of types?
> > As previously briefly discussed in IRC, i **strongly** believe that the current behavior is correct, and `readability-function-size`
> > should analyze/diagnose the function as a whole, including all sub-classes/sub-functions.
> Do you know of any coding standards related to this check that weigh in on this?
> 
> What do you think about this:
> ```
> #define SWAP(x, y) ({__typeof__(x) temp = x; x = y; y = x;})
> 
> void f() {
>   int a = 10, b = 12;
>   SWAP(a, b);
> }
> ```
> Does f() have two variables or three? Should presence of the `SWAP` macro cause this code to be more complex due to having too many variables?
Datapoint: the doc (`docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-function-size.rst`) actually already states that macros *are* counted.

```
.. option:: StatementThreshold

   Flag functions exceeding this number of statements. This may differ
   significantly from the number of lines for macro-heavy code. The default is
   `800`.
```
```
.. option:: NestingThreshold

    Flag compound statements which create next nesting level after
    `NestingThreshold`. This may differ significantly from the expected value
    for macro-heavy code. The default is `-1` (ignore the nesting level).
```


Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D44602