xazax.hun marked an inline comment as done. xazax.hun added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaInit.cpp:7077 + // someContainer.add(std::move(localOWner)); + // return p; + if (!IsTempGslOwner && pathOnlyInitializesGslPointer(Path) && ---------------- gribozavr wrote: > xazax.hun wrote: > > gribozavr wrote: > > > Why is it a false positive? `std::move` left memory owned by `localOwner` > > > in unspecified state. > > I saw user code relying on the semantics of certain classes. E.g. they > > assume if a `std::unique_ptr` is moved the pointee is still in place, so it > > is safe to return a reference to the pointee. Do you think those cases > > should be diagnosed too? > It is... debatable. It is not obvious whether the lifetime of the pointed-to > memory has ended or not without more detailed lifetime annotations. I think > it is fair to silence it, however, I think the comment should be updated to > explain the situation in a more detailed way, since without context it looks > like a use-after-move. Do you think renaming `localOwner` to `uniquePtr` would be sufficient or do you want me to extend the text too? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64256/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64256 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
