hokein added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50447#1192280, @JonasToth wrote:
> If whitelisting works, thats fine. But I agree with @lebedev.ri that a > contribution/improvement to the ExprMutAnalyzer is the better option. This is > especially the case, because multiple checks (and maybe even some other parts > then clang-tidy) will utilize this analysis. I'm sorry for not explaining it with more details. Might be "regression" is a confusing world :(. It is not false positive. The change using ExprMutAnalyzer is reasonable, IMO. It makes this check smarter to catch cases which will not be caught before. For example, for (auto widget : container) { widget.call_const_method(); // const usage recongized by ExprMutAnalyzer, so it is fine to change widget to `const auto&` } But in our codebase, we have code intended to use like below, and it is in base library, and is used widely. I think it makes sense to whitelist this class in our internal configuration. for (auto _ : state) { ... // no `_` being referenced in the for-loop body } Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D50447 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits