cjdb added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-pod-const-ref-to-value.rst:21
+
+ If set to `true`, this check will limit itself to the `builtinType()`
types. Default is `false`.
----------------
jmarrec wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > D107873 is related.
> >
> > I'd like to see some tests/discussion around large types, e.g.
> > ```
> > struct Widget { int a[1000]; };
> > void f(const Widget&);
> > ```
> > (I think D107873 at least makes a conscious attempt to get the "would it be
> > passed in registers?" check right.)
> >
> > I'd like to see some tests/discussion around generic code, e.g.
> > ```
> > template<class T>
> > struct Max {
> > static T max(const T& a, const T& b);
> > };
> > int x = Max<int>::max(1, 2); // passes `int` by const reference, but this
> > is fine
> > ```
> Should I close this one in favor of https://reviews.llvm.org/D107873?
Up to you. There's always a chance that D107873 doesn't get approved. What I
find most interesting is that we were independently working on this at the same
time :-)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107900/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107900
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
