JonasToth added a comment. I see, thank you :)
Am 17.08.2018 um 18:55 schrieb Shuai Wang via Phabricator: > shuaiwang added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883#1203690, @JonasToth wrote: > >> I am suprised that this does not automatically follow from the general >> rules. At the end, smartpointers cant do anything else then 'normal' classes. >> >> The `operator+/->` were not handled before? The mutation of `SmartPtr x; >> x->mf();` should already be catched, not? > > Different from `std::vector::operator[]` which has two overloads for const > and non-const access, `std::unique_ptr` only has one const version of > `operator->`. > So for `SmartPtr x; x->mf();` we only see a const operator being invoked on > `x`. `mf` is not a member of `SmartPtr` and the member call to `mf` is not on > `x` directly, we never followed that far. > > Repository: > > rCTE Clang Tools Extra > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883 Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
