carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D144217#4143554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144217#4143554>, @PiotrZSL wrote:
> In D144217#4143540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144217#4143540>, @carlosgalvezp > wrote: > >>> Perhaps, this can even be generalized to all types whose size() and empty() >>> are constexpr. > > Problem is that you can mark function constexpr, but it doesnt need to be > constexpr evaluated: > > struct C > { > constexpr C(int v) : v(v) {} > constexpr int size() const { return v; }; > constexpr bool empty() const { return v == 0; }; > constexpr void setSize(int vv) { v = vv; }; > int v; > }; > > constexpr C value(6); > C non_const(6); > > I would need to check if it's constexpr evaluated, but here we don't evaluate > it. Alternative would be to check if method use only template arguments, but > then it could use other const static or something... > This is why I decided to go with config. And still you may have other user > provided classes that does not have empty/size constexpr. Ok, good point! ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ContainerSizeEmptyCheck.cpp:101 + IgnoreComparisonForTypesRegexp( + Options.get("IgnoreComparisonForTypesRegexp", "^::std::array")) {} + ---------------- I also realize that in other checks, this is typically implemented as a list (comma or semicolon-separated) instead of a regex. Would it make sense to do that here as well, for consistency? As a user I would also find it easier and more intuitive to type a list than to have to google how to create a list using regex :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144217/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144217 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
