Von: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely....@gmail.com>
> What exactly are you suggesting for the semantics of the warning?
Good question. It is difficult to detect all suspiscious cases, but at least
some of the can be defined:
If we have a function prototype
f(...,Ti xi,...Tj xj,...)
and call the function f(... xi, ... xj,...) with some xi, xj with aliasing /
data sharing,
and both Ti and Tj are references/pointers and at least one is a non-const
pointer / reference,
then the warning should be given.
E.g. for both int:
Ti int: no warning
Ti int& or int*: warning if Tj is int*, const int*, int&, or const int&; no
warning for Tj int.
Ti const int& or const int*: warning if Tj is int*, or int&; no warning if Tj
is const int*, const int&, or int.
Or maybe some code example:
void increase_x_by_y_and_z(int& x, const int& y, const int& z)
{
x+=y;
x+=z;
}
This should be OK (no sharing, no warning):
x=1;
y=1;
z=1;
increase_x_by_y_and_z(x,y,z);
This should give a warning (sharing of int& and const int&):
x=1;
y=1;
increase_x_by_y_and_z(x,y,x);
On the other hand, this is OK (y is shared but not mutable - two times const
int&):
x=1;
y=1;
increase_x_by_y_and_z(x,y,y);
Helmut
