[cfe-dev] [clang-tidy] Some possible contributions

[Marek Kurdej via cfe-dev]

Hi Piotr,

I think that it would be great to add your checks to clang-tidy.
I've had a quick look at colobot-lint and, IMO, it would be nice to add
some other checks, e.g. NakedNew, NakedDelete, ImplicitBoolCast may be of
interest.

BTW, does your InconsistentDeclarationParameterNameRule handles unused
parameters (i.e. those that have names in the declaration, but are marked
/*unused*/ or something along these lines in the definition)?

Regards,
Marek Kurdej


---------- Wiadomość przekazana dalej ----------
> From: Piotr Dziwinski via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:53:30 +0200
> Subject: [cfe-dev] [clang-tidy] Some possible contributions
> Hello,
>
> I am the author of a static analysis tool using Clang's LibTooling which I
> wrote for the open-source Colobot project (
> https://github.com/colobot/colobot). This tool, which I named
> colobot-lint (https://github.com/colobot/colobot-lint), is written using
> a framework loosely based on the code of clang-tidy.
>
> Now that my little project has matured enough, I think I may contribute
> some of its code back to clang-tidy. However, before I create patches and
> send them to cfe-commits, I'd like to hear some discussion on whether you
> think my code is generic enough and useful enough to be included in
> clang-tidy.
>
> For now I only propose the following two patches based on what I think is
> the most generic of what I wrote. My tool does a lot more, but I won't bore
> you with details here (if you're curious, it's documented in README files).
>
>
> Patch proposal #1: add check for inconsistent parameter names in function
> declarations
> This will check for instances of function (re-)declarations which differ
> in parameter names. For example: void foo(int a, int b, int c); in header
> file and void foo(int d, int e, int f) { /*...*/ } in code module file.
> This check may be useful to enforce consistency in a large project,
> keeping declaration and definition always in sync. In extreme case, I think
> it may even prevent some class of bugs, as declaration may not get updated
> during refactoring and then a person writing code against the outdated
> interface, may get the wrong idea of what parameters to pass to the
> function.
>
>
> Patch proposal #2: add check for instances of old C-style functions
> This will check for instances of legacy functions which use old C-style
> convention of declaring all parameters at the beginning of the function:
> void foo()
> {
>     int a, i;
>     /* and later, after many lines in between, there is first use of
> declared variables: */
>     a = bar();
>     for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { /*...*/ }
> }
> It may be useful for people who have to maintain old codebases and want to
> find instances of such functions to refactor them to "modern" C++ style,
> declaring variables in the place where they are needed. This in fact is
> exactly what we're doing in Colobot project and I imagine there are other
> projects like that.
>
>
> Please let me know if you think I should proceed with submitting these
> patches. I can also prepare other patches if you think some other parts of
> my code would be useful.
>
> Best regards,
> Piotr Dziwinski
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150828/df855f98/attachment.html>