We have a new policy in place making links to private resources
something we try to avoid in source and test files. Normally, we'd
organically switch to the new policy rather than make a sweeping change
across a project. However, Clang is in a somewhat special circumstance
currently: recently, I've had several new contributors run into rdar
links around test code which their patch was changing the behavior of.
This turns out to be a surprisingly bad experience, especially for
newer folks, for a handful of reasons: not understanding what the link
is and feeling intimidated by it, wondering whether their changes are
actually breaking something important to a downstream in some way,
having to hunt down strangers not involved with the patch to impose on
them for help, accidental pressure from asking for potentially private
IP to be made public, etc. Because folks run into these links entirely
by chance (through fixing bugs or working on new features), there's not
really a set of problematic links to focus on -- all of the links have
basically the same potential for causing these problems. As a result,
this is an omnibus patch to remove all such links.
This was not a mechanical change; it was done by manually searching for
rdar, radar, radr, and other variants to find all the various
problematic links. From there, I tried to retain or reword the
surrounding comments so that we would lose as little context as
possible. However, because most links were just a plain link with no
supporting context, the majority of the changes are simple removals.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158071
Fixes nullability fix-it for `id<SomeProtocol>`. With this change
nullability specifier is inserted after ">" instead of between
"id" and "<".
rdar://problem/34260995
Reviewers: jordan_rose, doug.gregor, ahatanak, arphaman
Reviewed By: jordan_rose
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38327
llvm-svn: 314473
The newly-added notes from r290132 are too noisy even when the fix-it
is valid. For the existing warning from r286521, it's probably the
right decision 95% of the time to put the change outside the macro if
the array is outside the macro and inside otherwise, but I don't want
to overthink it right now.
Caught by the ASan bot!
More rdar://problem/29524992
llvm-svn: 290141
This is especially important for arrays, since no one knows the proper
syntax for putting qualifiers in arrays.
nullability.h:3:26: warning: array parameter is missing a nullability type specifier (_Nonnull, _Nullable, or _Null_unspecified)
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
nullability.h:3:26: note: insert '_Nullable' if the array parameter may be null
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
_Nullable
nullability.h:3:26: note: insert '_Nonnull' if the array parameter should never be null
void arrayParameter(int x[]);
^
_Nonnull
rdar://problem/29524992
llvm-svn: 290132
