================
@@ -36,6 +36,111 @@ void extractNodesByIdTo(ArrayRef<BoundNodes> Matches,
StringRef ID,
Nodes.insert(Match.getNodeAs<Node>(ID));
}
+// If `D` has a const-qualified overload with otherwise identical
+// ref-qualifiers, returns that overload.
+const CXXMethodDecl *findConstOverload(const CXXMethodDecl &D) {
+ assert(!D.isConst());
+
+ DeclContext::lookup_result lookup_result =
+ D.getParent()->lookup(D.getNameInfo().getName());
+ if (lookup_result.isSingleResult()) {
+ // No overload.
+ return nullptr;
+ }
+ for (const Decl *overload : lookup_result) {
+ const CXXMethodDecl *candidate = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(overload);
+ if (candidate && !candidate->isDeleted() && candidate->isConst() &&
+ candidate->getRefQualifier() == D.getRefQualifier()) {
----------------
legrosbuffle wrote:
Overloading would be allowed in this case, but I think having a `const`
overload with the same *parameter* types is enough to say that the use is
immutable (not that the case when the return value is non-const and the object
might be modified through the return value is caught by `(C)`). I've added a
test to make this explicit (`weird_overload()`).
That being said, your comment made me realize that we were not checking that
the parameter types were the same. Done and added tests (`at(Tag1)`). Thanks :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94362
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
