I was wondering, instead of treating `misc` differently and enabling
specific checks, maybe we can flip that since we actually seem okay with
most of the checks?
The main check I'm enabling, with significant edits here, is
`misc-no-recursion`. But maybe this is helpful to enable, even with the
necessary NOLINTs, since we want to avoid recursion in the toolchain?
This PR shows some example fixes in subst.cpp (which are more stylistic,
since the code shouldn't actually have recursed due to its structure; I
think we could remove the warning on TryResolveInst the same way). Some
also just don't seem worth fixing, like those in tests files (I didn't
see a way to exclude files in .clang-tidy, so instead I'm using
NOLINTBEGIN). But I think we might actually want to fix inst_namer, and
there's enough in convert that I didn't look closely.
Also, I made some protected -> private style fixes based on
`misc-non-private-member-variables-in-classes` (this is also how I
noticed `class Real` versus `struct Real`). With node_stack, it looks
like the `protected` wasn't even used. [Per
style](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Access_Control),
data members should be private outside tests. But since we can't
trivially exclude `protected` members in tests, I'm turning it off -- I
don't view it as offering enough benefit on the whole.
migrate_cpp issues are preexisting (I believe we just aren't monitoring
it), but changes there make `bazel build --config=clang-tidy -k //...`
work cleanly.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This replaces GetAstMatcher with AddMatcher because cxxForRangeStmt is a StatementMatcher. addMatcher has multiple definitions (https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/classclang_1_1ast__matchers_1_1MatchFinder.html) and so this approach allows using the right addMatcher without writing per-call overloads.
To handle the `var`, I'm considering something like moving VarDecl logic into a VarMatcherBase so that I can just use CXXForRangeStmt's getLoopVariable. The problem is a for-range statement has multiple VarDecls, and getLoopVariable may be the easiest way to identify the real one.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandRichard Smith
Jon Meow