shuaiwang added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/clang-tidy/ExprMutationAnalyzerTest.cpp:410
+ match(withEnclosingCompound(declRefTo("y")), AST->getASTContext());
+ EXPECT_THAT(mutatedBy(ResultsY, AST.get()), ElementsAre("y"));
+}
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> Out of curiosity: Why is the result with `y` different from the result for
> `x`? Both time `x` is mutated and `g()` mutates them.
This is ultimately caused by not handling pointers yet.
As soon as the address of an object is taken we assume the object is mutated.
e.g.
```
void f(const int*);
void g() {
int x;
f(&x); // <-- address of x taken, assume mutation
int y[10];
f(y); // <-- address of y taken, assume mutation
}
```
And in all such cases the "mutated by" expression is the expression that takes
the address.
So back in this case, `g(x)` mutates `x` because we're assuming `g` mutates its
argument through non-const reference. Note that the declared `g` might not be
the one actually being called because of overload resolution, there could be
another `void g(char(&)[8])`
While for `g(y)` we know it's calling the `void g(char*)` so there's an array
to pointer decay, and the decay is the point we assumed mutation not the
function call.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50619
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
