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

[Richard via cfe-commits]

LegalizeAdulthood 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) {
----------------
danielmarjamaki wrote:
> 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?
> 
Regarding the name of the check, I can't think of anything better only things that are longer but aren't substantially more clear in revealing the intent of the check.  IMO, you don't blindly run clang-tidy checks based on the name, you run them after reading what they do and deciding if you want that transformation or not.

In order of my preference:

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

I might use the word 'can' instead of the world 'could', but that's a very minor quibble.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D15332