Prazek marked 2 inline comments as done. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEmplaceCheck.cpp:40 @@ +39,3 @@ + // passed pointer because smart pointer won't be constructed + // (and destructed) as in push_back case. + auto isCtorOfSmartPtr = hasDeclaration(cxxConstructorDecl( ---------------- sbarzowski wrote: > > Look at tests - the same thing happens when > > Yeah. I meant looking for `new` in addition to blacklist. > > > Not many custom classes take pointer in constructor. > > Obviously depends on codebase, but IMO it's quite common. However usually > this classes aren't copy-constructible (or at least shouldn't be) anyway, > making it impossible to use push_back, so maybe it's not such a big deal. > > > If I will look for const pointers, then I will not be able to pass "abc" > > into vector<string>. > > I wrote explicitly about only **non**-const pointers. It doesn't matter if it is const or not. Disabling any of them would disable some cases where it would be good. I have to run it on llvm code base and see what happens
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20964 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
