mgehre marked 17 inline comments as done.
mgehre added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/readability-static-const-method.cpp:312
+ return const_cast<DataPattern *>(this)->get();
+ }
+
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> mgehre wrote:
> > JonasToth wrote:
> > > I think more template tests wouldn't hurt. From the other checks
> > > experience I can safely say we got burned a few times :)
> > > Instantiating the templates with builtin arrays, pointers, references and
> > > different qualifiers usually produces interesting test cases as well,
> > > that need to be handled properly.
> > >
> > > Another thing that comes to mind with templates are overloaded operators.
> > > ```
> > > template <class Foo>
> > > void bar() {
> > > Foo x1, x2;
> > > Foo y = x1 + x2;
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > Builtins are not changed by `operator+` but that can not be said about
> > > other types in general (maybe with concepts used properly).
> > The check only checks templates instantiations (so we will see no template
> > parameters, just ordinary types). The plus here will be be function call in
> > the AST of the instantiation when Foo has an overloaded operator+.
> > The current version will never propose to make bar() const when a method on
> > `this` is called.
> > I can add the test to show this.
> Yes please add a test to show they are not analyzed.
I will now restrict this PR to the `static` part of the check, and I fail to
come up with an example where operators could make a static looking function
non-static.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61749/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61749
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
