aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/AvoidFunctionalCheck.h:19 + +/// Check for several deprecated types and classes from <functional> header +/// ---------------- alexfh wrote: > Quuxplusone wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > alexfh wrote: > > > > alexfh wrote: > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > massberg wrote: > > > > > > > massberg wrote: > > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > > Missing full stop at the end of the sentence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should this modernize check be limited to `<functional>`? > > > > > > > > > Just like we have a "deprecated headers" check, perhaps this > > > > > > > > > should be a "deprecated APIs" check? > > > > > > > > Added full stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if this check should be limited to <functional> or > > > > > > > > be extended to a full 'deprecated API' check. > > > > > > > > This change is just a start, several more types and classes > > > > > > > > which are removed from <functional> will follow, e.g: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - std::ptr_fun, std::mem_fun, std::mem_fun_ref > > > > > > > > - std::bind1st, std::bind2nd > > > > > > > > - std::unary_function, std::binary_function > > > > > > > > - std::pointer_to_unary_function, > > > > > > > > std::pointer_to_binary_function, std::mem_fun_t, > > > > > > > > std::mem_fun1_t, std::const_mem_fun_t, > > > > > > > > - std::const_mem_fun1_t, std::mem_fun_ref_t, > > > > > > > > std::mem_fun1_ref_t, std::const_mem_fun_ref_t, > > > > > > > > std::const_mem_fun1_ref_t > > > > > > > > - std::binder1st, std::binder2nd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As these are a bunch of functions and types, in my eyes a check > > > > > > > > just for <functional> is fine. But I'm also fine with a general > > > > > > > > 'deprecated API' check. > > > > > > > > Alex, can you comment on this? > > > > > > > There are already other checks for functions which are removed in > > > > > > > C++17 like modernize-replace-random-shuffle. > > > > > > > So I think having an separate check for functions and types > > > > > > > removed from <functional> would be OK. > > > > > > You've hit the nail on the head for what I'm trying to avoid -- we > > > > > > shouldn't have multiple checks unless they do drastically different > > > > > > things. Having a deprecated check like this really only makes sense > > > > > > for APIs that are deprecated but aren't uniformly marked as > > > > > > `[[deprecated]]` by the library. As such, I think we really only > > > > > > need one check for this rather than splitting it out over multiple > > > > > > checks -- the existing check functionality could be rolled into > > > > > > this one and its check become an alias. > > > > > > I'm not sure if this check should be limited to <functional> or be > > > > > > extended to a full 'deprecated API' check. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC, it should be possible to implement fixits at least for some use > > > > > cases here. My impression was that Jens was at least considering to > > > > > work on fixits. The other check mentioned here - > > > > > `modernize-replace-random-shuffle` already implements fixits. Fixits > > > > > are specific to the API and some codebases may have better > > > > > replacement APIs than what the standard suggests, so different users > > > > > may want to apply different set of the fixes. Given all that, I > > > > > wouldn't just merge all of the checks dealing with deprecated APIs. > > > > > Splitting them at least by header seems like a good start, maybe even > > > > > finer granularity may be needed in some cases. > > > > TL;DR "they do drastically different things" is the case for this check > > > > and modernize-replace-random-shuffle. > > > I disagree that they do drastically different things or that fix-its are > > > a problem. Some of these APIs have replacements, others do not. At the > > > end of the day, the basics are the same: the functionality is deprecated > > > and you should consider a replacement. Sometimes we know that replacement > > > up front, other times we don't. I don't think we should make users reach > > > for a per-header file answer to that problem unless it provides them some > > > benefit. I don't see users caring to update <functional> but not other > > > headers. > > > > > > I can see benefit to splitting the *implementations* of the checks along > > > arbitrary lines, but how we structure the implementation is orthogonal to > > > how we surface the functionality. > > This sounds like clang-tidy ought to have an umbrella option here, > > analogous to how -Wformat turns on -Wformat-security, -Wformat-truncation, > > -Wformat-overflow, etc. (Well, in GCC it doesn't, but that's the general > > idea.) > > So there could be a 'modernize-avoid-deprecated-in-c++11' umbrella option > > that turns on both 'modernize-replace-random-shuffle' and > > 'modernize-avoid-functional'; a 'modernize-avoid-removed-in-c++17' umbrella > > option that turns on those two plus some other options; and so on. > > Just a thought. If such a structure is anathema to how clang-tidy does > > things, then never mind. :) > > I don't see users caring to update <functional> but not other headers. > > This is our use case: we have preferred local alternative for the deprecated > APIs from <random>, so the upstream modernize-replace-random-shuffle check is > out of question. However this check will be useful. > > If the two checks are combined, we'll need to add flags to enable > warnings/fixes for each subset of the APIs, which is IMO worse than having > two separate checks. Why is the upstream check out of the question -- the fix-its aren't useful for your case, but it seems the check would be? Would you be opposed to the approach @Quuxplusone suggested? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D42730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
