mboehme added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp:1198
+ }
+ }
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > gribozavr wrote:
> > > Unless you think it is redundant, could you also add
> > >
> > > ```
> > > if (A a1; A(std::move(a2)).getInt() > 0) {}
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Also some true positive tests would be good:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > if (A a1; A(std::move(a2)).getInt() > A(std::move(a2)).getInt()) {}
> > > ```
> > >
> > > ```
> > > A a1;
> > > if (A a2 = std::move(a1); A(std::move(a1)) > 0) {}
> > > ```
> > Done, but any idea why everything in this function is placed inside a loop?
> > Looks like its just for scoping, but then why not just a compound
> > statement, as is done above? This feels very odd.
> I think it is to ensure that the checker understands the sequencing. If it
> didn't, then the loop would trigger the "moved twice" logic.
(Original author of the test here.)
Correct. I should probably have added a comment explaining this when I wrote
the test. Feel free to add such a comment.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67292/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67292
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
