danielmarjamaki added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-non-const-parameter.cpp:3
@@ +2,3 @@
+
+// Currently the checker only warns about pointer arguments.
+//
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> danielmarjamaki wrote:
> > LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > > How hard is it to extend it to references?
> > >
> > > Certainly the confusion about what is const is easier to resolve in the
> > > case of references because the references themselves are immutable.
> > If a "int &" reference parameter is not written then probably it's better
> > to pass it by value than making it const. I would prefer that unless it has
> > to use "int &" to comply with some interface.
> >
> > I realize that the same can be said about pointers. If there is a "int *p"
> > and you just read the value that p points at .. maybe sometimes it would be
> > preferable to pass it by value.
> I thought the point of this check was to identify stuff passed by
> reference/pointer that could instead be passed by const reference/pointer.
>
> Passing a read-only number type (`short`, `char`, `int`, `float`, `double`,
> etc.) parameter by pointer or by reference/pointer is a code smell, but this
> check isn't trying to identify that situation.
>
> I'm more interested in things like:
>
> ```
> void foo(std::string &s);
> ```
>
> becoming
>
> ```
> void foo(const std::string &s);
> ```
>
> when `s` is treated as a read-only value within the implementation of `foo`.
I agree pointers and references are related from user perspective.
But technically I think we can't reuse the same markCanNotBeConst code.
This expression "p += 2" does not prevent that *p is const. But "r += 2" would
prevent that the reference r is const.
> I'm more interested in things like:
Yes that would be interesting. However I only warn about number types right
now. As my last example in the rst file shows I don't warn for non-constant
struct pointers for a reason.
Imho, I would like to have a warning when the data is modified even though *p
is const. Like this:
struct S { int *a; int *b; };
int f3(const struct S * const p) {
*(p->a) = 0; // <- I would like to have warning here
}
Also dealing with C++ is not my priority. I write this check so I can use it on
C code.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
