LegalizeAdulthood added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18191#377686, @sdowney wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18191#376471, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > > > There is utility in the definition of a function in saying that an argument > > is `const int i` instead of `int i`. The const-ness declares the intent > > that this local variable is not going to be modified. However, there is > > that oddity in C++ that allows a declaration to say `void f(int i);` and > > the implementation to say `void f(const int i) { ... }`. > > > > I think I would like the fixit to preserve the const-ness of the argument > > while still stripping it of it's reference. > > > The usual pattern for that is to have the definition use const, and the > declaration not, since it's an implementation detail if the passed parameter > is modified. And, unfortunately, I'm stuck with one compiler that mangles > those two differently, causing link errors. > > Having void foo(const int i) in a declaration makes me suspicious, since the > const is meaningless. > > I could make this an option? If the option is set, emit 'const type' if the > Decl hasBody? It seems reasonable to do this as a refinement after this check is in place. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18191 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
