JonasToth added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines-const-correctness-transform-pointer-as-values.cpp:12 + // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: variable 'p_local0' of type 'double *' can be declared 'const' + // CHECK-FIXES: const +} ---------------- LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > JonasToth wrote: > > JonasToth wrote: > > > 0x8000-0000 wrote: > > > > LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > > > > > Shouldn't this validate that the `const` was placed in the correct > > > > > position? > > > > > e.g. `const double *` is a different meaning from `double *const` > > > > > > > > > > Apply to all the other `CHECK-FIXES` as well > > > > Can we have the checker merged in first, then we can worry about the > > > > automatic fixer? > > > the checker is its own utility with its own tests and proper test > > > coverage. > > > yes `const double*` and `double* const` are different and are correctly > > > inserted, but that is not tested here, but here: > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/AddConstTest.cpp > > > > > > Similar to the actual `const` analysis. That has its own test-suite > > > (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/unittests/Analysis/ExprMutationAnalyzerTest.cpp) > > > > > > The tests here are concerned with the diagnostics and "real" code. > > > Afterall, this functionality is too complex to have all of it checked > > > with these kind of tests. > > > I think the separate testing in specialized unit-tests (as is now) for > > > the specialized functions is the right approach and the `CHECK-FIXES` are > > > not necessary in this instance, maybe even bad, because it makes the > > > tests unclearer. > > sry: The _fixer_ is its own utility ... > > > > Additionally: The test is run on big projects with transformation (LLVM, > > some Qt Stuff). > > First everything is transformed and then recompiled. The compiler tells > > what was incorrectly inserted :) > > > > Thats part of the testing too. > > The tests here are concerned with the diagnostics and "real" code. > > OK, great! I didn't realize it was covered by unit tests, > which is perfectly fine with me `:)` Perfect! Yeah, the check and patches here are a bit all over the place, which is another reason why a merge would be really great :D 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
