hokein added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50447#1192280, @JonasToth wrote:
> If whitelisting works, thats fine. But I agree with @lebedev.ri that a
> contribution/improvement to the ExprMutAnalyzer is the better option. This is
> especially the case, because multiple checks (and maybe even some other parts
> then clang-tidy) will utilize this analysis.
I'm sorry for not explaining it with more details. Might be "regression" is a
confusing world :(. It is not false positive. The change using ExprMutAnalyzer
is reasonable, IMO. It makes this check smarter to catch cases which will not
be caught before. For example,
for (auto widget : container) {
widget.call_const_method(); // const usage recongized by ExprMutAnalyzer,
so it is fine to change widget to `const auto&`
}
But in our codebase, we have code intended to use like below, and it is in base
library, and is used widely. I think it makes sense to whitelist this class in
our internal configuration.
for (auto _ : state) {
... // no `_` being referenced in the for-loop body
}
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50447
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
