whisperity added a comment. Some grammatical fixes and suggestions, inline. I might have absolutely butchered 80-col in the suggestions (thanks Phab for not showing any indication of line length...), so make sure you manually reformat the document before going forward!
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:446-447 +- New checker: :ref:`alpha.core.C11Lock <alpha-core-C11Lock>` and + :ref:`alpha.fuchsia.Lock <alpha-fuchsia-lock>` checks for appropriate API + locks/unlocks. + ---------------- ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:450-451 +- New checker: :ref:`alpha.security.cert.pos.34c <alpha-security-cert-pos-34c>` + finds calls to the ``putenv`` function which pass a pointer to an automatic + variable as the argument. + ---------------- ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:458-459 +- New checker: :ref:`webkit.NoUncountedMemberChecker + <webkit-NoUncountedMemberChecker>` checks for that raw pointers and references + to uncounted types can't be used as class members, only ref-counted types. + ---------------- The phrasing is incredibly convoluted here, let's put the //positive// part of the rule that is enforced first. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:464 + +- Improved the analyzer's understanding of inherited C++ constructors. + ---------------- This is a core change, right? //How// is this list ordered? Perhaps there should be a sort by category, first the core changes, then the individual checkers' improvements. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:471-472 + +- Improve the pre- and post condition modeling of several hundred more standard + C functions. + ---------------- martong wrote: > Umm, this is still an alpha command line option, plus we improved only the > pre-condition checks. > So, I'd rather say something like: > ``` > Improve the pre-condition modeling of several functions defined in the POSIX > standard. This is in alpha currently. To enable, one must explicitly set the > ``ModelPOSIX`` argument of the ``apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions`` checker. > ``` Maybe it's worth mentioning the checker here too, akin to the other list elements? ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:480 + +- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect + checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and ---------------- Typo. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:480-481 + +- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect + checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and + avoid such errors. ---------------- whisperity wrote: > Typo. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:481 +- Fixed a few remaining cases of checkers emmiting reports under the incorrect + checker name, and employed a few restrictions to more easily identifiy and + avoid such errors. ---------------- Typo. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:487-488 + ``-analyzer-checker-help-developer`` instead of ``-analyzer-checker-help``. + Manually enabling or disabling checkers found on this list is not recommended + for non-development purposes. + ---------------- ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:490-491 + +- Added :ref:`on-demand parsing <ctu-on-demand>` capability to cross translation + unit analysis. + ---------------- What's the proper way of naming this feature, @martong @dkrupp @xazax.hun? Is it like this, or should it be in capitals, or should it be `cross`**`-`**`translation unit`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86533 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits