zinovy.nis added a comment. In D74692#1884054 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692#1884054>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> (I sent this to the mailing list, but I guess it doesn't show up here unless > I do it through Phab. Quoting myself—) > > I see your point about how users who care should always be passing this check > alongside "performance-move-const-arg"; but IMHO it still makes sense for > clang-tidy to warn unconditionally about code of the form > > x = std::move(y); > use(y); > > > regardless of the incidental type of `y`. Sure, it's //technically// not > wrong if `y` is const... or if `y` is a primitive type, such as `Widget*`... > or if `y` is a well-defined library type, such as > `std::shared_ptr<Widget>`... or if `y` is a library type that works in > practice > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60175782/is-stdlistint-listreturn-stdmovelistlist-guaranteed-to-leave/60186200#comment106478458_60186200>, > such as `std::list<int>`... but regardless of its technical merits, the code > is still //logically semantically// wrong, and I think that's what the > clang-tidy check should be trying to diagnose. Ok, maybe it worth just adding an additional text into the warning, like "Use of potentially moved value detected. But value is const so no actual move occurrs"? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
