srividya-sundaram added a comment. In D157129#4564766 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157129#4564766>, @steakhal wrote:
> I went over the patch and I found only a single debatable case for taking by > reference. > To clarify why I would prefer taking by value: value semantics is good for > local reasoning; thus improves maintainability. We should only deviate from > that when there is actual benefit for doing so. > Static analysis tools, such as Coverity, have false-positives. Some rules are > better than others. > As a static analysis tool developer myself, I'd recommend carefully > evaluating the findings before taking action for resolving them. > And if you find anything interesting, tool vendors are generally happy to > receive feedback about their tool. I guess, they should as well understand > that taking a pointer by reference doesn't improve anything. Thank you, @steakhal for the detailed feedback. Based on your comments, and after discussing with @tahonermann, I am abandoning this patch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157129/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157129 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
