alexfh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/modernize-avoid-functional.cpp:30
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE+1]]:25: warning: 'binary_function<int, int, bool>'
is deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17 [modernize-avoid-functional]
+class BinaryTestClass : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
----------------
Template parameters in this message are not useful. binary_function is removed
in C++17 regardless of the template parameters used. I played with your patch a
bit and came up with a way to remove the template parameters in a not overly
hacky way (and also pulled out the common part of the message to avoid
duplication):
```
void AvoidFunctionalCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
Finder->addMatcher(
cxxRecordDecl(allOf(isDerivedFrom(classTemplateSpecializationDecl(
hasAnyName("std::binary_function",
"std::unary_function"))
.bind("base")),
anyOf(isClass(), ast_matchers::isStruct()),
ast_matchers::isDefinition()))
.bind("un_or_binary_derived"),
this);
Finder->addMatcher(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(hasName("std::ptr_fun"))))
.bind("ptr_fun_call"),
this);
Finder->addMatcher(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(hasName("std::mem_fun"))))
.bind("mem_fun_call"),
this);
}
void AvoidFunctionalCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
const StringRef Message = "%0 is deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17";
if (const auto *const Decl =
Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CXXRecordDecl>("un_or_binary_derived")) {
const auto *SpecDecl =
Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl>("base");
for (CXXBaseSpecifier Base : Decl->bases()) {
if (SpecDecl == Base.getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl())
diag(Base.getLocStart(), Message) << SpecDecl->getSpecializedTemplate();
}
} else if (const auto *const Call =
Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CallExpr>("ptr_fun_call")) {
diag(Call->getLocStart(), Message) << "'std::ptr_fun'";
} else if (const auto *const Call =
Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CallExpr>("mem_fun_call")) {
diag(Call->getLocStart(), Message) << "'std::mem_fun'";
}
}
```
This could be done differently, of course, depending on which way this check is
going to evolutionize (e.g. if you're going to find usages of deprecated
entities on a lower level - say, TypeLocs, or if you're going to provide fixits
for narrower usage patterns).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42730
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
