sammccall added a comment. In D72217#1844204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217#1844204>, @njames93 wrote:
> https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#beware-unnecessary-copies-with-auto > > // Copy pointers, but make it clear that they're pointers. > for (const auto *Ptr : Container) { observe(*Ptr); } > for (auto *Ptr : Container) { Ptr->change(); } > > > This is the reasoning behind putting the const qualifier in the check. If > people feel that this isn't quite enough to justify the const qualifier I'll > submit a follow up. The general consensus though is that you should mark auto > pointers as const if they don't need to change to express intent The text/rule there is explicitly about avoiding/clarifying copies - the examples indeed use 'const' but AFAICT the "don't copy" reasoning only applies to including *&. FWIW I think const here is often noise, particularly in AST-walking code where you're traversing an edge from an X* to a Y* - the latter will be const if the former is, and I care at API boundaries but not in between. (It's usually a meaningless distinction - e.g. we're just reading but it's a non-const pointer because RecursiveASTVisitor isn't const-friendly). So while spelling const is often helpful, we shouldn't (and don't) require it, and the current config of this check is too intrusive. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
