1319396 - Update the list of checkers in .clang-tidy file

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Developer Infrastructure :: Source Code Analysis, defect)

Description

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

As part of the initiative to convert gecko to C++11, I would like to update the .clang-tidy file with the checkers that Andi and myself are using.

I am also proposing to remove misc-use-override as modernize-use-override is doing the same but can also manage auto replacement.

Comment 1

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Attachment: Bug 1319396 - Update the list of checkers in the .clang-tidy file

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/94668/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/94668/

Comment 2

[(no longer active)]

Comment on attachment 8813143 [details]
Bug 1319396 - Update the list of checkers in the .clang-tidy file

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/94668/#review94938

Comment 3

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/2e262535fc73
Update the list of checkers in the .clang-tidy file r=Ehsan

Comment 4

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2e262535fc73

Comment 5

[Karl Tomlinson (:karlt)]

What is the preferred replacement for NS_IMETHOD Method() override to avoid
Warning: 'virtual' is redundant since the function is already declared 'override' [clang-tidy: modernize-use-override]?

Would nsresult Method() override pick up __stdcall from the base class virtual?
NS_IMETHODIMP Method() override would work I guess, but seems out of character, at least for a declaration that is not a definition.

Thanks!

Comment 6

[Andi [:andi]]

(In reply to Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) from comment #5)
> What is the preferred replacement for NS_IMETHOD Method() override to avoid
> Warning: 'virtual' is redundant since the function is already declared
> 'override' [clang-tidy: modernize-use-override]?
> 
> Would nsresult Method() override pick up __stdcall from the base class
> virtual?
> NS_IMETHODIMP Method() override would work I guess, but seems out of
> character, at least for a declaration that is not a definition.
> 
> Thanks!

Please see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1420366, we are planning to remove it.