njames93 marked 10 inline comments as done.
njames93 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/QualifiedAutoCheck.cpp:31
+  Const,
+  Volatile // Ignore restrict as not c++ keyword.
+};
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> We still support `restrict` in C++ though: https://godbolt.org/z/CT5nw2
> 
> Also, one thing that comes up whenever we talk about qualifiers are type 
> attributes like address spaces. I have no idea how those interact with type 
> deduction (simple tests show that it does seem to be deduced: 
> https://godbolt.org/z/LtFAMJ), but I would imagine we would want (at least an 
> option) to be able to ensure those get written out explicitly as well. (If 
> this turns out to be difficult, it could be done in a follow-up patch.)
I'll add in support for it


================
Comment at: 
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/QualifiedAutoCheck.cpp:94-95
+  auto Pointee = QType.getTypePtr()->getPointeeType();
+  if (Pointee.isNull())
+    return Pointee.isLocalConstQualified();
+  return Pointee.isConstQualified();
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you explain why this code is needed? If the pointee is null, there's been 
> some sort of error, I believe.
> 
> I am not certain this function is needed, I think 
> `QType->getPointeeType().isConstQualified()` likely suffices.
Well it kept crashing without that check so I need to do some more digging on 
that front 


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/QualifiedAutoCheck.cpp:159
+void QualifiedAutoCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
+  if (auto Var = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<VarDecl>("auto")) {
+    bool IsPtrConst = isPointerConst(Var->getType());
----------------
Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > `auto *`
> This would be nice test for check.
I feel like this is what the face-palm emoji is for. I should've pointed that 
run clang tidy script at clang-tools-extra


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72217



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to