JonasToth marked an inline comment as done.
JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines/ConstCorrectnessCheck.cpp:46
+
+void ConstCorrectnessCheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
+ const auto ConstType = hasType(isConstQualified());
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Should this check only fire in C++? I'm sort of on the fence. It's a C++
> > > core guideline, so it stands to reason it should be disabled for C code.
> > > But const-correctness is a thing in C too. WDYT?
> > I do not know all the subtle differences between C and C++ here. Judging
> > from this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5248571/is-there-const-in-c
> > the current form would not be correct for C for pointers.
> > The assumptions of this check and especially the transformations are done
> > for C++. I dont see a reason why the value-semantic would not apply for
> > both.
> >
> > Maybe there is a way to make the code compatible for both languages. The
> > easiest solution would probably to not do the 'pointer-as-value'
> > transformation. This is not that relevant as a feature anyway. I expect not
> > nearly as much usage of this option as for the others.
> >
> > In the end of the day i would like to support both C and C++. Right now it
> > is untested and especially the transformation might break the code. It
> > should run on both languages though, as there is no language checking.
> > I will add some real world C code-bases for the transformation testing and
> > see what happens :)
> > Judging from this:
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5248571/is-there-const-in-c the current
> > form would not be correct for C for pointers.
>
> Sure, there may be additional changes needed to support the other oddities of
> C. I was asking more at the high level.
>
> > In the end of the day i would like to support both C and C++. Right now it
> > is untested and especially the transformation might break the code.
>
> Another option is for us to restrict the check in its current form to just
> C++ and then expose a C check from it in a follow-up (likely under a
> different module than cppcodeguidelines). For instance, CERT has a
> recommendation (not a rule) about this for C
> (https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/DCL00-C.+Const-qualify+immutable+objects)
> and I would not be surprised to find it in other coding standards as well.
Another const check is probably better. The clang-tidy part should be minimal
effort. I think there isn't alot of duplication either.
We could still think of proper configurability of this check and alias it into
other modules with proper defaults for C.
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
