mnbvmar added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/ReturningTypeCheck.cpp:69
@@ +68,3 @@
+AST_MATCHER_FUNCTION(ast_matchers::internal::Matcher,
+ haveOneActiveArgument) {
+ return anyOf(parameterCountIs(1),
Probably hasOneActive
mnbvmar marked 14 inline comments as done.
mnbvmar added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20053
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
mnbvmar added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UnnecessaryMutableCheck.cpp:47
@@ +46,3 @@
+
+ void RunSearch(const Decl *Declaration) {
+auto *Body = Declaration->getBody();
Unless I miss something, the moment we set FoundNonConstUse to true, we s
mnbvmar updated this revision to Diff 59445.
mnbvmar added a comment.
Fixes done.
Added macro test.
Docs should be working now.
Updated docs.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20053
Files:
clang-tidy/misc/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/misc/MiscTidyModule.cpp
clang-tidy/misc/UnnecessaryMutableCheck.cpp
mnbvmar updated this revision to Diff 58940.
mnbvmar added a comment.
Clang-formatted code.
Added a simple macro test.
Resolved @Prazek's issues.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/Incr
mnbvmar created this revision.
mnbvmar added a reviewer: alexfh.
mnbvmar added subscribers: krystyna, sbarzowski, Prazek, staronj, cfe-commits.
This implements unnecessary-mutable check. It's still bug-prone and might
produce false positives, so all suggestions are welcome.
http://reviews.llvm.o
mnbvmar created this revision.
mnbvmar added reviewers: alexfh, Prazek, staronj, krystyna.
mnbvmar added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19165
Files:
clang-tidy/modernize/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/modernize/IncrementBoolCheck.h
mnbvmar added a comment.
This check throws a warning also on the conversion to floats (probably very
rare ones):
double number = true;
Even though this behavior is correct, the code warns about the implicit
conversion to **integers**.
Comment at: docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:119
mnbvmar added a comment.
You could also think whether char literals should be converted to true/false,
too. Apart from this (and other people's doubts), everything's fine.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@list
