njames93 marked 7 inline comments as done.
njames93 added a comment.
What do you think about volatile qualifiers. Personally I don't think its
important to qualify an volatile on a pointer that is volatile, but i should
adhere to the decl being declared as volatile
volatile auto X = getPointer();
//transform to
auto *X volatile = getPointer();
auto X = getVolatilePointer();
//transform to
auto *X = getVolatilePointer();
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/QualifiedAutoCheck.cpp:61
+ Diag << FixItHint::CreateReplacement(
+ FixItRange, IsPtrConst ? "const auto *const " : "auto *const ");
+ } else {
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> the outer const might be debatable. some code-bases don't want the `* const`,
> i think neither does LLVM. maybe that could be configurable?
The outer const is only there if the vardecl was already declared as const
```
const auto X = getPointer();
auto *const X = getPointer();
```
Those 2 decls are functionally identical, both mean that the pointer X can't
change but X is pointing to data that can change
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
