What this really does is avoids shadowing names, so that we can
comfortable have things like `Check::DiagnosticEmitter` or
`Check::DiagnosticLoc` without shadowing being a concern.
Note, down this path I'm also thinking about:
- Renaming misc DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter classes, possibly
just to DiagnosticConsumer/DiagnosticEmitter (so
`Check::DiagnosticEmitter` instead of `SemIRLocDiagnosticEmitter`).
- Dropping `Diagnostic` from `Emitter::DiagnosticBuilder`.
- But not for `Check::DiagnosticBuilder`, because `Check::Builder` would
be ambiguous.
- Renaming diagnostics/diagnostic_* to drop "diagnostic".
[Discussion about SemIRLoc ->
DiagnosticLoc](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1353771570463768698)
reminded me of this (in particular the older [Check::DiagnosticBuilder
discussion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1344363562608627763)),
but I'd only do that rename if there's matching consensus about a path
forward where we keep SemIRLoc, and in a way that it's only ever used
for diagnostics (the divergence from which is at the root of current
LocId discussion).
I'm trying to keep that separate from a namespace addition for clarity.
Most of these are places where we failed to include a header file and
simply never got an error about this. The fix is to include the header
file.
Most other cases are functions that should have been marked `static` but
were not. Finding all of these was a main motivation for me enabling the
warning despite how much work it is.
One complicating factor was that we weren't including the `handle.h` for
all the state-based handler functions. While this isn't a tiny amount of
code, it is just declarations and doesn't add any extra dependencies. It
also lets us have the checking for which functions need to be `static`
and which don't. For the `parse` library I had to add the `handle.h`
header as well, I tried to match the design of it in `check`.
I have also had to work around a bug in the warning, but given the value
it seems to be providing, that seems reasonable. I've filed the bug
upstream: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/94138
I also had to use some hacks to work around limitations of Bazel rules
that wrap `cc_library` rules and don't expose `copts`. I filed a bug for
`cc_proto_library` specifically:
~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/22610~https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/4446
Continuing with #3070. Just a dir and file rename (only prefix change is
lexer_file_test). Everything in the lex dir should be marked as a move.
Note, I think this closes#3070. There may still be further cleanup
later, but the organizational changes suggested there are being
completed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith
Chandler Carruth