whisperity marked 8 inline comments as done.
whisperity added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/SuspiciousCallArgumentCheck.cpp:51
+ {true, 40, 50}, // Substring.
+ {true, 50, 66}, // Levenshtein.
+ {true, 75, 85}, // Jaro-Winkler.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> We should probably document where all these numbers come from, but `66`
> definitely jumps out at me as being a bit strange. :-D
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea. All these values are percentages
between 0 and 100 (`-1` is just saying that //"This heuristic doesn't accept
percentages"//), and this is written in the documentation now. However, the
answer to //"**why** 66%?"//, unless @varjujan can say something, I think is
lost to history...
I'll read over his thesis once again, maybe I can find anything with regards to
this.
Either way, I've detailed from both the code and the thesis how the percentages
are meant. In some cases, the % is calculated as //"% of the longer string's
length"//. In the Leventhstein's case, it's actually inverted:
```
Dist = (1 - Dist / LongerLength) * 100;
```
So what this says is that if the current arg1-param1 arg2-param2 pairing has
less than the inverse of 50% (which is more than 50%) of the longer string's
edit distance, but the arg2-param1 and arg1-param2 (the suggested swapped
order) has more than the inverse of 66% (which is less than 33%), then the swap
will be suggested.
Originally these values were called `LowerBound` and `UpperBound`,
respectively, which was saying **even less** about what they mean...
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/SuspiciousCallArgumentCheck.cpp:271-272
+
+// Checks whether ArgType is an array type identical to ParamType`s array type.
+// Enforces array elements` qualifier compatibility as well.
+static bool isCompatibleWithArrayReference(const QualType &ArgType,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
>
Good catch! I believe this is what happens when you write LaTeX and code at the
same time? I didn't notice this when I was tidying up the code...
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/SuspiciousCallArgumentCheck.cpp:347
+// Checks whether ArgType converts implicitly to ParamType.
+static bool areTypesCompatible(QualType ArgType, QualType ParamType,
+ const ASTContext &Ctx) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> It seems like we're doing an awful lot of the same work as
> `ASTContext::typesAreCompatible()` and type compatibility rules are pretty
> complex, so I worry about this implementation being different than the
> `ASTContext` implementation. Have you explored whether we can reuse more of
> the logic from `ASTContext` here, or are they doing fundamentally different
> kinds of type compatibility checks?
No, I didn't know that function even existed. This check must be older than
that function.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
