summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/GoogleModuleTest.cpp
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* Move google-explicit-constructor check to a separate source file.Alexander Kornienko2014-06-181-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: No functional changes. Reviewers: djasper Reviewed By: djasper Subscribers: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4188 llvm-svn: 211154
* Fix assertion in google-explicit-constructor check when the constructor isAlexander Kornienko2014-05-051-0/+9
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | defined in a macro. Summary: We shouldn't suggest replacements in macros anyway, as we can't see all usages of the macro and ensure the replacement is safe for all of them. Reviewers: klimek Reviewed By: klimek Subscribers: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3611 llvm-svn: 207987
* Fix the message for "Move constructor declared explicit".Alexander Kornienko2014-04-291-4/+4
| | | | | | Make the tests for removal of 'explicit' more diverse. llvm-svn: 207534
* Warn on explicit copy constructors.Alexander Kornienko2014-04-291-0/+10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: The Google C++ Style Guide doesn't require copy constructors to be declared explicit, but some people do this by mistake. Make this check detect and fix such cases. Reviewers: djasper Reviewed By: djasper Subscribers: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3541 llvm-svn: 207531
* clang-tidy explicit constructor check: don't warn on copy or move constructors.Alexander Kornienko2014-03-201-0/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Explicit_Constructors "The exception is copy constructors, which, in the rare cases when we allow them, should probably not be explicit." Reviewers: klimek Reviewed By: klimek CC: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3122 llvm-svn: 204322
* clang-tidy explicit constructors check: don't warn on deleted constructors.Alexander Kornienko2014-03-191-0/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | Reviewers: klimek Reviewed By: klimek CC: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3116 llvm-svn: 204226
* Made the ClangTidyTest helper class independent of the testing framework.Alexander Kornienko2014-02-271-10/+16
| | | | | | | | | | | | Reviewers: klimek Reviewed By: klimek CC: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2895 llvm-svn: 202399
* Fix ExplicitConstructorCheck to warn only on in-class declarations.Alexander Kornienko2014-02-131-0/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: I'm not absolutely sure this is 100% correct solution, but it seems to do what I expect. Reviewers: djasper, klimek Reviewed By: djasper CC: cfe-commits Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2756 llvm-svn: 201308
* Run llvm/utils/sort_includes.py over the Clang tools code. This doesn'tChandler Carruth2014-01-071-1/+0
| | | | | | | | | | always produce as pretty of results as it does in LLVM and Clang, but I don't mind and the value of having a single canonical ordering is very high IMO. Let me know if you spot really serious problems here. llvm-svn: 198703
* Initial architecture for clang-tidy.Daniel Jasper2013-07-291-0/+26
This is the first version of a possible clang-tidy architecture. The purpose of clang-tidy is to detect errors in adhering to common coding patterns, e.g. described in the LLVM Coding Standards. This is still heavily in flux. Review: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D884 llvm-svn: 187345
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud