| .. title:: clang-tidy - readability-non-const-parameter |
| |
| readability-non-const-parameter |
| =============================== |
| |
| The check finds function parameters of a pointer type that could be changed to |
| point to a constant type instead. |
| |
| When ``const`` is used properly, many mistakes can be avoided. Advantages when |
| using ``const`` properly: |
| |
| - prevent unintentional modification of data; |
| |
| - get additional warnings such as using uninitialized data; |
| |
| - make it easier for developers to see possible side effects. |
| |
| This check is not strict about constness, it only warns when the constness will |
| make the function interface safer. |
| |
| .. code-block:: c++ |
| |
| // warning here; the declaration "const char *p" would make the function |
| // interface safer. |
| char f1(char *p) { |
| return *p; |
| } |
| |
| // no warning; the declaration could be more const "const int * const p" but |
| // that does not make the function interface safer. |
| int f2(const int *p) { |
| return *p; |
| } |
| |
| // no warning; making x const does not make the function interface safer |
| int f3(int x) { |
| return x; |
| } |
| |
| // no warning; Technically, *p can be const ("const struct S *p"). But making |
| // *p const could be misleading. People might think that it's safe to pass |
| // const data to this function. |
| struct S { int *a; int *b; }; |
| int f3(struct S *p) { |
| *(p->a) = 0; |
| } |