[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
github-actions[bot] wrote: @knatten Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our [build bots](https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/). If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail [here](https://llvm.org/docs/MyFirstTypoFix.html#myfirsttypofix-issues-after-landing-your-pr). If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of [LLVM development](https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patch-reversion-policy). You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
https://github.com/PiotrZSL closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
https://github.com/PiotrZSL approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
https://github.com/HerrCai0907 approved this pull request. LGTM. Thanks for your contribution. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tools-extra
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tidy
Author: Anders Schau Knatten (knatten)
Changes
First of all, fix a confusion in the documentation for pro-type-member-init
which used the wrong term for a user-provided constructor. (In the
corresponding comment in ProTypeMemberInitCheck.h, which was added in the same
commit that added this documentation, we already use the correct term).
Second, also fix a comment in the corresponding test that had the same mistake.
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/std23/dcl.fct.def.default#5:
A function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly
defaulted or deleted on its first declaration.
("user-defined constructor" is not a thing in the standard)
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617.diff
2 Files Affected:
- (modified)
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
(+1-1)
- (modified)
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
(+1-1)
``diff
diff --git
a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
index ae55bf7bd7c86..97af01a895e1c 100644
---
a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
+++
b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init
==
-The check flags user-defined constructor definitions that do not
+The check flags user-provided constructor definitions that do not
initialize all fields that would be left in an undefined state by
default construction, e.g. builtins, pointers and record types without
user-provided default constructors containing at least one such
diff --git
a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
index eaa73b906ce09..d999b84cae03e 100644
---
a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
+++
b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ struct PositiveUninitializedBaseOrdering : public
NegativeAggregateType,
};
// We shouldn't need to initialize anything because PositiveUninitializedBase
-// has a user-defined constructor.
+// has a user-provided constructor.
struct NegativeUninitializedBase : public PositiveUninitializedBase {
NegativeUninitializedBase() {}
};
``
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
github-actions[bot] wrote: Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using `@` followed by their GitHub username. If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the [LLVM GitHub User Guide](https://llvm.org/docs/GitHub.html). You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the [LLVM Discord](https://discord.com/invite/xS7Z362) or on the [forums](https://discourse.llvm.org/). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor (PR #96617)
https://github.com/knatten created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96617
First of all, fix a confusion in the documentation for pro-type-member-init
which used the wrong term for a user-provided constructor. (In the
corresponding comment in ProTypeMemberInitCheck.h, which was added in the same
commit that added this documentation, we already use the correct term).
Second, also fix a comment in the corresponding test that had the same mistake.
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/std23/dcl.fct.def.default#5:
> A function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly
> defaulted or deleted on its first declaration.
("user-defined constructor" is not a thing in the standard)
>From 7bc0205abaeeeab058d6568b202a0d7f98496863 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anders Schau Knatten
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:13:35 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [clang-tidy]: Use correct term for user-provided constructor
First of all, fix a confusion in the documentation for
pro-type-member-init which used the wrong term for a user-provided
constructor. (In the corresponding comment in ProTypeMemberInitCheck.h,
which was added in the same commit that added this documentation, we
already use the correct term).
Second, also fix a comment in the corresponding test that had the same
mistake.
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/std23/dcl.fct.def.default#5:
> A function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly
> defaulted or deleted on its first declaration.
("user-defined constructor" is not a thing in the standard)
---
.../checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst | 2 +-
.../checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
index ae55bf7bd7c86..97af01a895e1c 100644
---
a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
+++
b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.rst
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init
==
-The check flags user-defined constructor definitions that do not
+The check flags user-provided constructor definitions that do not
initialize all fields that would be left in an undefined state by
default construction, e.g. builtins, pointers and record types without
user-provided default constructors containing at least one such
diff --git
a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
index eaa73b906ce09..d999b84cae03e 100644
---
a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
+++
b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/pro-type-member-init.cpp
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ struct PositiveUninitializedBaseOrdering : public
NegativeAggregateType,
};
// We shouldn't need to initialize anything because PositiveUninitializedBase
-// has a user-defined constructor.
+// has a user-provided constructor.
struct NegativeUninitializedBase : public PositiveUninitializedBase {
NegativeUninitializedBase() {}
};
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
