[PATCH] D15332: new clang-tidy checker readability-non-const-parameter

[Daniel Marjamäki via cfe-commits]

danielmarjamaki added inline comments.

================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-non-const-parameter.cpp:116-134
@@ +115,21 @@
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:18: warning: parameter 'p' can be const
+int return1(int *p) {
+  // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}int return1(const int *p) {{{$}}
+  return *p;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:25: warning: parameter 'p' can be const
+const int *return2(int *p) {
+  // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}const int *return2(const int *p) {{{$}}
+  return p;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:25: warning: parameter 'p' can be const
+const int *return3(int *p) {
+  // CHECK-FIXES: {{^}}const int *return3(const int *p) {{{$}}
+  return p + 1;
+}
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:27: warning: parameter 'p' can be const
+const char *return4(char *p) {
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> The wording of this warning, and the name of the check, are highly misleading.
> 
> It's *not* the parameter that can be const, it's the parameter's *pointee*.
I understand. Figuring out a better message is not easy. I and a collegue brain stormed:

pointer parameter 'p' could be declared with const 'const int *p'

pointer parameter 'p' could be pointer to const

pointer parameter 'p' declaration could be pointer to const

missing const in pointer parameter 'p' declaration

declaration of pointer parameter 'p' could be 'const int *p'

Do you think any of these would be good?



http://reviews.llvm.org/D15332