[clang-tools-extra] r350814 - [clang-tidy] Fix case of local variables in modernize-use-nodiscard checker
Jonas Toth via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 10 03:56:44 PST 2019
Author: jonastoth
Date: Thu Jan 10 03:56:44 2019
New Revision: 350814
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=350814&view=rev
Log:
[clang-tidy] Fix case of local variables in modernize-use-nodiscard checker
Summary:
Correct the case of the local variables..
Rational:
I want to be able to run clang-tidy on new clang-tidy checker code prior to creating a review (to demonstrate we should dog food our own tools during development, not my suggestion but @Eugene.Zelenko)
To this end I am running the following in a script, prior to make a change.
```
tidy:
@for source in $$(git status -suno | grep ".cpp$$" | cut -c4-) ;\
do \
clang-tidy -quiet $$source -- $(TIDY_FLAGS);\
done
```
I then want to go through the checkers and see which checkers most closely match the review style of the reviewers
```
---
Checks: '
-clang-diagnostic-*,
readability-identifier-naming,
llvm-header-guard
'
WarningsAsErrors: ''
HeaderFilterRegex: ''
AnalyzeTemporaryDtors: false
FormatStyle: LLVM
CheckOptions:
- key: readability-identifier-naming.IgnoreFailedSplit
value: '0'
- key: readability-identifier-naming.VariableCase
value: 'CamelCase'
- key: readability-identifier-naming.LocalVariableCase
value: 'CamelCase'
...
```
Unfortunately in doing so, I have identified that my previous review {D55433} it violates what looks like to be the convention of local variables being in CamelCase.
Sending this small review in the hope it can be corrected.
Patch by MyDeveloperDay.
Reviewers: JonasToth, Eugene.Zelenko
Reviewed By: JonasToth
Subscribers: xazax.hun, Eugene.Zelenko
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56536
Modified:
clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp
Modified: clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp?rev=350814&r1=350813&r2=350814&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp (original)
+++ clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/modernize/UseNodiscardCheck.cpp Thu Jan 10 03:56:44 2019
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ void UseNodiscardCheck::registerMatchers
!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus)
return;
- auto functionObj =
+ auto FunctionObj =
cxxRecordDecl(hasAnyName("::std::function", "::boost::function"));
// Find all non-void const methods which have not already been marked to
@@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ void UseNodiscardCheck::registerMatchers
hasAttr(clang::attr::WarnUnusedResult),
hasType(isInstantiationDependentType()),
hasAnyParameter(anyOf(
- parmVarDecl(anyOf(hasType(functionObj),
- hasType(references(functionObj)))),
+ parmVarDecl(anyOf(hasType(FunctionObj),
+ hasType(references(FunctionObj)))),
hasType(isNonConstReferenceOrPointer()),
hasParameterPack()))))))
.bind("no_discard"),
@@ -122,11 +122,11 @@ void UseNodiscardCheck::check(const Matc
if (Loc.isInvalid() || Loc.isMacroID())
return;
- SourceLocation retLoc = MatchedDecl->getInnerLocStart();
+ SourceLocation RetLoc = MatchedDecl->getInnerLocStart();
ASTContext &Context = *Result.Context;
- auto Diag = diag(retLoc, "function %0 should be marked " + NoDiscardMacro)
+ auto Diag = diag(RetLoc, "function %0 should be marked " + NoDiscardMacro)
<< MatchedDecl;
// Check for the existence of the keyword being used as the ``[[nodiscard]]``.
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ void UseNodiscardCheck::check(const Matc
// 1. A const member function which returns a variable which is ignored
// but performs some external I/O operation and the return value could be
// ignored.
- Diag << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(retLoc, NoDiscardMacro + " ");
+ Diag << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(RetLoc, NoDiscardMacro + " ");
}
} // namespace modernize
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list