logan-5 marked an inline comment as done.
logan-5 added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-unintended-adl.cpp:61
+void templateFunction(T t) {
+ swap(t, t);
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> logan-5 wrote:
> > Quuxplusone wrote:
> > > This is not the idiomatic way of calling `swap`: there is no ADL swap for
> > > `int`, for example (so `templateFunction<int>` will hard-error during
> > > instantiation). It would probably be scope-creep to try to handle the
> > > "std::swap two-step", but can you leave a TODO comment somewhere to
> > > revisit this issue?
> > >
> > I believe this addressed by my juggling the tests around a bit.
> Juggling the tests around doesn't address the fact that any code that does
> `swap(a,b)` without doing `using std::swap;` first (or `begin(a)` without
> `using std::begin;`) is almost certainly broken for primitive types.
>
> My naive thought is that you would //not// do `using std::make_error_code;`
> because `make_error_code` is definitely never going to be used with primitive
> types. So "functions okay to call via ADL" and "functions that require the
> std::swap two-step" actually are slightly different whitelists.
>
> I was saying that although this issue is probably out-of-scope for what
> you're doing in this patch, still, it would be nice to leave a TODO
> somewhere. ...Or maybe you say "nah, that's so far out of scope I don't want
> to think about it, and it may never get done, so even leaving a TODO is
> inappropriate."
Thanks for clarifying. I do think that is out of scope for my goals for this
patch, but I think a TODO comment is reasonable.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
