NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/AdjacentArgumentsOfSameTypeCheck.cpp:488
+void AdjacentArgumentsOfSameTypeCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
+ if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus)
+ return;
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> whisperity wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > Check seems to be useful for C and probably for Objective-C.
> > I'm not knowledgeable about Objective-C at all to make a decision on how
> > the "adjacent argument ranges" could be calculated and what mixups are
> > possible. As for C, should a `cppcoreguidelines-` check be enabled for C?
> > Or you mean we should allow it to work, and the user will toggle how they
> > see fit.
> I've added a `FIXME` for ObjC as I'm really not qualified in that language.
> C support has been added.
The check should keep working on Objective-C to check C-style calls, and it
should also keep working on Objective-C++ to check C++-style method calls. You
should be able to test this by renaming any of your `.c`/`.cpp` test files to
`.m`/`.mm` (of course you don't *have* to duplicate your tests; just keep a
couple of functions to see that the warning is still there).
However, the check shouldn't try to check Objective-C message expressions /
method declarations, because Objective-C message syntax has so-called
"parameter labels": the caller is forced to spell out which parameter it's
passing, which effectively mitigates the problem.
Note that `ObjCMethodDecl` is not a sub-class of `FunctionDecl`, so your
checker is already working correctly (as long as you remove the explicit
suppression).
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
