[llvm-branch-commits] [clang-tools-extra] [NFC] [clang-tidy] Add doc about FP in unchecked-statusor-access (PR #179592)

[Florian Mayer via llvm-branch-commits]

https://github.com/fmayer updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/179592

>From 28146a02ca95191b37cc0a8675a62bf69bb84900 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Florian Mayer <fmayer at google.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 18:05:55 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] typo

Created using spr 1.3.6
---
 .../docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
index 0055b19036a5b..9193c6de8a2e9 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
@@ -398,4 +398,4 @@ inequalities. For instance, the following will result in a false positive:
       return 0;
    }
 
-In fact, currently this is also the case if the two conditinos are identical.
+In fact, currently this is also the case if the two conditions are identical.

>From 49adfb6dd692c463e7a7dc5b786d60a6c25cd60c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Florian Mayer <fmayer at google.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 18:11:04 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] rst

Created using spr 1.3.6
---
 .../docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst  | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
index 9193c6de8a2e9..2f09aea02b67b 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst
@@ -390,6 +390,7 @@ Because it uses a simple SAT solver, the checker cannot reason about integers
 inequalities. For instance, the following will result in a false positive:
 
 .. code:: cpp
+
    void f(int n, absl::StatusOr<int> x) {
       if (n > 0)
         CHECK_OK(x);