JonasToth added a comment. What do you mean by "The code is a bit more intimidating", the check itself or the amount of tests?
In general the utility piece that was commited before this check should already analyze the constness good, given that this check builds upon it the functionality should be ok. In my opinion there is nothing major missing, but the reviewers (usually @aaron.ballman) have to judge that. After that i would come back to you. If you have a run on a codebase, you could attach logfile to see how noisy the check is itself. :) If you do have time, there are always bugs to fix :P But you could also take a look at the enforcement of some coding guidelines (my personal todolists: https://github.com/JonasToth/CppCoreGuidelinesTooling https://github.com/JonasToth/HighIntegrityTooling). There are always low hanging fruit checks. Implementing something there helps getting used to the codebase of clang, too. Am 17.07.2018 um 12:41 schrieb Florin Iucha via Phabricator: > @JonasToth > I am interested in helping - is there any area you'd like me to look at? I > have reviewed the test cases and they seem fine. The code is a bit more > intimidating, given that I just started looking at clang/llvm internals. But > I have pulled the patch into my personal build at home and at ${BIG_CO} and I > am using the check "in production". I have detected no crashes and no false > positives yet. > > Repository: > > rCTE Clang Tools Extra > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444 Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
