Mordante added a comment.
I like this change, but I don't feel qualified to fully review the patch.
I wonder what happens if the project already contains a suggested fix, for
example:
#define __FOO(X) ...
#define _FOO(X) __FOO(X)
#define FOO(X) _FOO(X)
will it suggest:
#define FOO(X) ...
#define FOO(X) FOO(X)
#define FOO(X) FOO(X)
?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/ReservedIdentifierCheck.cpp:70
+ const bool IsInGlobalNamespace) {
+ return IsInGlobalNamespace && Name.size() > 1 && Name[0] == '_';
+}
----------------
`Name.size() > 1` doesn't catch `_` in the global namespace. Catching `_` will
probably also cause issues with the automatic renaming.
What about renaming `__`?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-reserved-identifier-invert.cpp:21
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:8: warning: declaration uses identifier
'Helper', which is not a reserved identifier [bugprone-reserved-identifier]
+// CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}struct __Helper {};{{$}}
+struct _helper2 {};
----------------
Why suggesting `__Helper` instead of `_Helper` ?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-reserved-identifier-invert.cpp:56
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:17: warning: declaration uses identifier 'Up',
which is not a reserved identifier [bugprone-reserved-identifier]
+// CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}template <class __Up>{{$}}
+inline reference_wrapper<const Up>
----------------
Likewise why not `_Up` ?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-reserved-identifier.cpp:68
+
+} // namespace __ns
+
----------------
Should it not suggest to change this to `namespace ns` ?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72213/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72213
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
