danielmarjamaki marked 10 inline comments as done.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-non-const-parameter.cpp:117-135
@@ +116,21 @@
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:18: warning: pointer parameter 'p' can be
+int return1(int *p) {
+ // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}int return1(const int *p) {{{$}}
+ return *p;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:25: warning: pointer parameter 'p' can be
+const int *return2(int *p) {
+ // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}const int *return2(const int *p) {{{$}}
+ return p;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:25: warning: pointer parameter 'p' can be
+const int *return3(int *p) {
+ // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}const int *return3(const int *p) {{{$}}
+ return p + 1;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:27: warning: pointer parameter 'p' can be
+const char *return4(char *p) {
+ // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}const char *return4(const char *p) {{{$}}
----------------
I have changed the message now. pointer parameter 'p' can be pointer to const
The name is the same. Do you think it would be better with
PointerParameterConstnessCheck() perhaps?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D15332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
