aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33531#767059, @alexfh wrote:
> > Would it make sense to silence this diagnostic in the presence of also > > checking for cert-dcl21-cpp for such operators? > > Currently there's no mechanism in clang-tidy to express dependencies or > compatibility issues between checks. Moreover, we already have checks that > are not meant to be run together, for example, > readability-braces-around-statements and its google- incarnation (and other > alias checks with different settings). That said, we could whitelist postfix > increment and decrement operators in this check. Camillo, WDYT? I can imagine a generic whitelist mechanism might be useful for this check. It could even be empty by default, but the documentation could call out cert-dcl21-cpp specifically and show an example of how you can run both checks. > On a side note, the check's performance implications might be more important > than the readability aspect of dropping the `const`, so the check might be a > better fit for the `performance` category. I agree. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/ConstValueReturnCheck.cpp:27 + // skip those too. + Finder->addMatcher(functionDecl(returns(qualType( + isConstQualified(), ---------------- alexfh wrote: > How about just matching definitions to avoid duplicate warnings? I'll echo this. I'd be worried about this triggering on 3rd party library headers that the user cannot control, otherwise. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/ConstValueReturnCheck.cpp:97 + + auto ReturnType = Func->getReturnType(); + if (!ReturnType.isLocalConstQualified()) ---------------- No `auto` here, or elsewhere, when the type isn't explicitly spelled out in the initialization. Also, you can drop the local `const` qualifiers on value types. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D33531 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
