• remove unproductive check-fixes line

In D130181#3769618, @njames93 wrote:

In D130181#3769083, @JonasToth wrote:

...

Your concerns aren't actually that important. Because the transformations only work on for binary operators, and not CXXOperatorCallExpr, it would always never do any special logic, instead just wrap the whole thing in parens and negate it.

ping @njames93 :)

_Edit_: If overloaded operators are ignored and the check only applies to pointers, int and bool the following is irrelevant. But I did not spot such a guard.
If this is the case, it of course opens the question about at least optional<> types and how to handle those.

during the original implementation of the fix-util I had the plan to provide an option for east-vs-west const, but during the discussions we came to the conclusion that clang-format should do this (the patches were already pending at that point in time).

just my 2 cents

@njames93 friendly ping, for https://reviews.llvm.org/D130793 as well :)

• mention C limitation

• remove bad change from diff

• split patch
• remove unnecessary includes

• improve test

• add test with typedef
• [docs] improve documentation for misc-const-correctness

In D54943#3681527, @sammccall wrote:

This check is enabled by default in LLVM (Checks: misc-* in llvm-project/.clang-tidy)

The warning on mutable non-ref local variables is pretty noisy: a *lot* of existing code does not do this, for defensible reasons (some of us think that the ratio of extra safety to extra syntactic noise for locals is too low). The LLVM style guide doesn't take a position on this.

Should this check

• be disabled for LLVM? (i.e. this is opt-in for codebases with strong const-correctness rules, LLVM does not, it was unintentionally enabled by misc-*)
• be configured only to warn on references? (i.e. we expect that is de-facto LLVM style and so uncontroversial)

Thank you very much for all you patience, reviews and tests!
I hope that the following improvements are now simpler to integrate and that the test matures well. :)

@njames93 @LegalizeAdulthood I did integrate the requested changes regarding warning for bad configs, refactoring of map-access and the directory structure of test-files and documentation.

• refactor: adjust warning message for mis-configuration to show which check is configured wrong

• fix: doc list and release-notes reference

In D54943#3619333, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:

Clang-tidy tests and docs have been moved to subdirectories by module, please rebase to main:HEAD

• test: move tests into group specific directory
• refactor: use more idiomatic c++ for scope-based analyzer creation/access
• feat: provide config validation if analysis if completely configured off
• refactor: move documentation as well
• test: add test for incorrect configurations

ping :)
@njames93 I added more CHECK-FIXES and CHECK-FIXES-NOT statements in the tests.

• addded CHECK-FIXES in clang-tidy tests
• merged latest main into branch

friendly ping :) (maybe @njames93 ?)

• fix documentation reference

Thank you for the review! I adjusted the patch.

• addressing review comments and remove unrelated changes

• fix: remove clangAnalysis link in cppcoreguidelines and add it in misc

• refactor: rename check to 'misc-const-correctness' and adjust the tests accordingly
• docs: adjust release notes and adjust check docs slightly

Sorry for the long delay, i simply forgot.
The patch is commited! :)

ok. then i will continue under misc-const-correctness. thank you for the clarifications!

Sorry, for my own sanity, I've stopped reviewing C++ Core Guideline reviews for their diagnostic behavior until the guideline authors put effort into specifying realistic enforcement guidance.

ping @aaron.ballman @njames93 :)

LGTM, but please adjust the naming nit to a better name.

won't happen anymore realistically.

LGTM with a small nit.

Another full run on LLVM with:

• address reviews comments, part 1
• Merge branch 'main' into feature_rebase_const_transform_20210808
• fixing iterator-to-bool conversion and addressing other more review comments

In D54943#3292552, @0x8000-0000 wrote:

@aaron.ballman - can this land for Clang14, or does it have wait for 15?

Are there any other reviewers that can approve this?

ping @aaron.ballman just in case the patch is now down on the list, I am sorry for my high latency :(

• use boolean for options
• fix snafoo on arc usage

• use boolean for option parsing

• fix: adjust unit test for new array-pointer condition in range-based for loops

• fix release note ordering

• improve documentation a bit

addressed all outstanding review comments.

• Merge branch 'main' into feature_rebase_const_transform_20210808
• fix: address other review comments
• remove one false positive with pointers in a range-based for loop on arrays

• Merge branch 'main' into feature_rebase_const_transform_20210808
• fix: fixes for most review comments

In D54943#3194643, @aaron.ballman wrote:

Thanks for pinging on this, it had fallen off my radar! @JonasToth -- did you ever get the chance to talk with @cjdb about the overlap mentioned in https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943#2950100? (The other review also seems to have stalled out, so I'm not certain where things are at.)

@aaron.ballman ping for review :)

ping

I analyzed the false positive and its probably not so simple to fix.

• add reproducer for '__unaligned' bug

In D54943#2956218, @tiagoma wrote:

I am getting false positives with

struct S{};

void f(__unaligned S*);

void scope()
{
	S s;
	f(&s);
}

• Merge branch 'main' into feature_rebase_const_transform_20210808

• minor adjustments for comments

thanks for your testing! i will look at the __unaligned issue, not sure if clang supports it, its an MSVC extension, is it?

In D54943#2947902, @cjdb wrote:

@JonasToth, @aaron.ballman suspects that there's enough overlap between this patch and D107873 to consider merging the two efforts. I'm happy to collaborate, but we should probably check that our goals are aligned. Are you active on the LLVM Discord? We could probably discuss a fair bit of this offline and then ping Aaron after we work out whether or not to do this.

The check in the latest form can properly transform llvm/lib and clang/ and requires 28 manual fixes afterwards (values and references are transformed, no other modifications).
Some are good and not an issue with the analysis itself, some may or may not be an issue with the analysis itself. I think it is more a template meta programming thing.

• fix: auto and type-dependent initializers fixed by ignoring them correctly in the matcher
• fix docs on limitations
• fix: deduplicate diagnostics from template instantiations

• write documentation for const-analysis check

• Merge branch 'main' into feature_rebase_const_transform_20210808

In D54943#2944680, @0x8000-0000 wrote:

Using the checker now in our production BuildBot - no crashes and no false positives. Can't say if there are false negatives, but at any rate the checker is better than most colleagues at finding what should be declared const.

Whats left from my personal todo is adjusting the documentation.
I think then this check can work as linter and if you want as fixer as well, but this has to be enable explicitly.

• remove transformation as default option, now it must be activated by the user explicitly
• register only for C++
• add a test-case for VLAs

• retry upload of patch to be a diff to main

• rebase to master
• fix a crash where a scope matched but non of its variables, leading to nullptr dereference (found with the current test-suite)
• remove outcommenting of tests that showed undesirable behavior

In D54943#2633408, @tiagoma wrote:

Can we get this in? I work in Microsoft Office and we have been using this checker and it works great! There are a couple of issues with it and I would like to contribute fixes.