omtcyfz marked an inline comment as done. omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24349#537350, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> Probably check should have options to extend list of containers and also to > assume all classes with integer type size() const and bool empty() const as > containers. It may be not trivial to find out all custom containers and last > option will be helpful to assemble such list. I was thinking about In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24349#537552, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24349#537549, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > Should we also check for absence of parameters in size() and empty() as > > well as const? > > > I think that would be reasonable. I do not agree about the const part. It should be encouraged to use const for these, but I do not think they should be a requirement. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D24349 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
