[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy][mlir] Expand to cover pointer of builder (PR #159423)

[Baranov Victor via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -66,10 +86,25 @@ void f() {
 
   mlir::ImplicitLocOpBuilder ib;
   // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+2]]:3: warning: use 'OpType::create(builder, ...)' instead of 'builder.create<OpType>(...)' [llvm-use-new-mlir-op-builder]
-  // CHECK-FIXES: mlir::ModuleOp::create(ib);
+  // CHECK-FIXES: mlir::ModuleOp::create(ib );
   ib.create<mlir::ModuleOp>(   );
 
   // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+2]]:3: warning: use 'OpType::create(builder, ...)' instead of 'builder.create<OpType>(...)' [llvm-use-new-mlir-op-builder]
   // CHECK-FIXES: mlir::OpBuilder().create<mlir::ModuleOp>(builder.getUnknownLoc());
   mlir::OpBuilder().create<mlir::ModuleOp>(builder.getUnknownLoc());
+
+  auto *p = &builder;
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+2]]:3: warning: use 'OpType::create(builder, ...)'
+  // CHECK-FIXES: NamedOp::create(*p, builder.getUnknownLoc(), "eaz");
+  p->create<NamedOp>(builder.getUnknownLoc(), "eaz");
+
+  CustomBuilder cb;
+  cb.f("faz");
+
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+4]]:3: warning: use 'OpType::create(builder, ...)' instead of 'builder.create<OpType>(...)' [llvm-use-new-mlir-op-builder]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: OperandOp::create(builder, builder.getUnknownLoc(),
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+3]]:5: warning: use 'OpType::create(builder, ...)' instead of 'builder.create<OpType>(...)' [llvm-use-new-mlir-op-builder]
+  // CHECK-FIXES: NamedOp::create(builder, builder.getUnknownLoc(), "gaz").getResult());
----------------
vbvictor wrote:

Instead of 2 separate check-fixes, can we use check-fixes-next to match expression as a whole? Or we intentionally keep separated

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159423