JonasToth added a comment.
In D45444#1766156 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444#1766156>, @0x8000-0000 wrote:
> Thank you for rebasing on current master.
>
> I have ran it today on our code base and found three classes of false
> positives:
>
> 1. Writing to a bitfield of a struct. The struct still is suggested it should
> be const.
> 2. Using a variable with an ostream extraction; like "int foo; cin >> foo;",
> except it was a template on the stream instance.
> 3. In a for loop, with a somewhat strange pair (for auto [foo, bar] =
> std::pair {}; foo < big_foo; ++ foo).
>
> Let me know if you can't create test cases from these descriptions and I
> can try to extract the code.
Thank you for testing, I would appreciate if you test later versions, too!
I will focus on landing the utility function for adding `const` first. I
noticed false positives in LLVM as well, I try to reproduce them all and
fix/workaround the issues.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45444
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
