JonasToth added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444#1189262, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> However, I'm wondering how this should integrate with other const-correctness > efforts like `readability-non-const-parameter`? I think this check/functionality will kinda replace the `readability-non-const-parameter` check. The readability check does not a full const-analysis too and i think only works on pointers or sth like this. Maybe the check name will still exist, but use the `ExprMutAnalyzer` or it will become an alias to this with special configuration. I would like to add support for marking methods `const` plus the ability for code transformation. Currently looking into `clang-refactor` framework to implement general refactoring primitives necessary for that. In general its probably better to have one check, that handles all `const` issues. > Also, I'm wondering how this check performs over a large code base like LLVM > -- how chatty are the diagnostics, and how bad is the false positive rate > (roughly)? I will prepare a report for this tomorrow. Currently the LLVM builds take very long on my laptop :( Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
