JonasToth added a comment. In D54943#1815073 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943#1815073>, @0x8000-0000 wrote:
> Applied the fix-it on one of our smaller (but C++ code bases) and it builds > and passes the tests. Comments: > > 1. I'm still seeing some false positives, where some locals that are const > are flagged as could be made const - I'm working to create a minimal > reproduction recipe. > 2. We're a west const shop :) so adding a bunch of east-consts will not fly > well. Is there a way to configure where 'const' is placed by the fixit? > (Specifically 'auto const', we prefer it 'const auto'). Does it build now? I couldn't find a way to reproduce that and gave up, tbh. 1. Template context? Auto involved? I saw some double-analysis for `auto&`, because clang-tidy didn't ignore those properly. And are you using `run-clang-tidy`? It deduplicates fixits, maybe that is involved? 2. YesNo, The utility for adding const is able to do both, west const has problems with `typedef int * MyType;` scenarios, where the `const` will apply to the wrong thing. Doing that right requires special care. BUT: `clang-format` has a east-const/west-const feature now (i think new with this release). So I am now somewhat considering to let clang-format do that for me. Thanks again for taking a look at it. But if the issues you found are new, i think we should maybe not commit this weekend. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
