whisperity added a comment. In D69560#1891167 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560#1891167>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Btw, we should update the terminology in the patch to use `parameter` instead > of `argument` (parameters are what the function declares, arguments are what > are passed in at the call site and they bind to parameters -- the issue this > check is trying to solve is on the declaration side, not the caller side). Indeed, I think I got confused because the rule heading says "parameter" but immediately the line following says "argument". I'll rename the check, also potentially rebase and all that, it should be a trivial thing to do. My bigger concerns are about the subsequent patch which makes this rule matching order of magnitude more powerful is implicit conversions. See D75041 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75041> for that. (Originally, the entire idea we came up with was more of a local brainstorming, and it was only during development that I realised that there is a (somewhat?) matching guideline rule about this.) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
