[Release notes] Mention Clang-tidy misc-fold-init-type check.

Highlighting consistency in Clang-tidy misc-fold-init-type check documentation.

llvm-svn: 267576

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index b7273a3..fe40386 100644 (file)
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -92,6 +92,12 @@ identified.  The improvements since the 3.8 release include:
   Detects dangling references in value handlers like
   ``std::experimental::string_view``.
 
+- New `misc-fold-init-type
+  <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/misc-fold-init-type.html>`_ check
+
+  The check flags type mismatches in `folds` like ``std::accumulate`` that might
+  result in loss of precision.
+
 - New `misc-forward-declaration-namespace
   <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/misc-forward-declaration-namespace.html>`_ check
 

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-fold-init-type.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-fold-init-type.rst
index e41ef47..6b79789 100644 (file)
--- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-fold-init-type.rst
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-fold-init-type.rst
@@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ misc-fold-init-type
 
 The check flags type mismatches in
 `folds <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function)>`_
-like `std::accumulate` that might result in loss of precision.
-`std::accumulate` folds an input range into an initial value using the type of
-the latter, with `operator+` by default. This can cause loss of precision
+like ``std::accumulate`` that might result in loss of precision.
+``std::accumulate`` folds an input range into an initial value using the type of
+the latter, with ``operator+`` by default. This can cause loss of precision
 through:
 
 - Truncation: The following code uses a floating point range and an int
-  initial value, so trucation wil happen at every application of `operator+`
+  initial value, so trucation wil happen at every application of ``operator+``
   and the result will be `0`, which might not be what the user expected.
 
 .. code:: c++