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
arithmetic into a couple of common routines. Use these to make the
messages more consistent in the various contexts, especially in terms of
consistently diagnosing binary operators with invalid types on both the
left- and right-hand side. Also, improve the grammar and wording of the
messages some, handling both two pointers and two (different) types.
The wording of function pointer arithmetic diagnostics still strikes me
as poorly phrased, and I worry this makes them slightly more awkward if
more consistent. I'm hoping to fix that with a follow-on patch and test
case that will also make them more helpful when a typedef or template
type parameter makes the type completely opaque.
Suggestions on better wording are very welcome, thanks to Richard Smith
for some initial help on that front.
llvm-svn: 133906
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
