[PATCH] D86533: (Urgent!) [release][docs][analyzer] Add 11.0.0. release notes

[Whisperity via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

whisperity added a comment.

Some grammatical fixes and suggestions, inline. I might have absolutely butchered 80-col in the suggestions (thanks Phab for not showing any indication of line length...), so make sure you manually reformat the document before going forward!



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:446-447
+- New checker: :ref:`alpha.core.C11Lock <alpha-core-C11Lock>` and
+  :ref:`alpha.fuchsia.Lock <alpha-fuchsia-lock>` checks for appropriate API
+  locks/unlocks.
+
----------------



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:450-451
+- New checker: :ref:`alpha.security.cert.pos.34c <alpha-security-cert-pos-34c>`
+  finds calls to the ``putenv`` function which pass a pointer to an automatic
+  variable as the argument.
+
----------------



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:458-459
+- New checker: :ref:`webkit.NoUncountedMemberChecker
+  <webkit-NoUncountedMemberChecker>` checks for that raw pointers and references
+  to uncounted types can't be used as class members, only ref-counted types.
+
----------------
The phrasing is incredibly convoluted here, let's put the //positive// part of the rule that is enforced first.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:464
+
+- Improved the analyzer's understanding of inherited C++ constructors.
+
----------------
This is a core change, right? //How// is this list ordered? Perhaps there should be a sort by category, first the core changes, then the individual checkers' improvements.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:471-472
+
+- Improve the pre- and post condition modeling of several hundred more standard
+  C functions.
+
----------------
martong wrote:
> Umm, this is still an alpha command line option, plus we improved only the pre-condition checks.
> So, I'd rather say something like:
> ```
> Improve the pre-condition modeling of several functions defined in the POSIX standard. This is in alpha currently. To enable, one must explicitly set the ``ModelPOSIX`` argument of the ``apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions`` checker.
> ```
Maybe it's worth mentioning the checker here too, akin to the other list elements?


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:480
+
+- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect
+  checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and
----------------
Typo.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:480-481
+
+- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect
+  checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and
+  avoid such errors.
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> Typo.



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:481
+- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect
+  checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and
+  avoid such errors.
----------------
Typo.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:487-488
+  ``-analyzer-checker-help-developer`` instead of ``-analyzer-checker-help``.
+  Manually enabling or disabling checkers found on this list is not recommended
+  for non-development purposes.
+
----------------



================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:490-491
+
+- Added :ref:`on-demand parsing <ctu-on-demand>` capability to cross translation
+  unit analysis.
+
----------------
What's the proper way of naming this feature, @martong @dkrupp @xazax.hun? Is it like this, or should it be in capitals, or should it be `cross`**`-`**`translation unit`?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533