aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaCoroutine.cpp:1585-1586 InitializedEntity Entity = InitializedEntity::InitializeVariable(GroDecl); - ExprResult Res = S.PerformMoveOrCopyInitialization(Entity, nullptr, GroType, - this->ReturnValue); + ExprResult Res = + S.PerformCopyInitialization(Entity, SourceLocation(), ReturnValue); if (Res.isInvalid()) ---------------- mizvekov wrote: > mizvekov wrote: > > mizvekov wrote: > > > aaronpuchert wrote: > > > > Perhaps this should just be direct initialization? Can't really find > > > > anything in the standard though. > > > So I just checked this again. Regarding our conversation on IRC, what I > > > said initially was correct: `ReturnValue` is always a member function > > > expression, built by `makeReturnObject` -> `buildPromiseCall` -> > > > `buildMemberCall`. So implicit move would never trigger here, and as far > > > as I see there is no reason for this code to have used > > > PerformMoveOrCopyInitialization in the first place. > > Err I meant: member function *call* expression > Also, I don't think we could force direct initialization here, if the object > returned by Gro is volatile for example. > With that said, copy elision from the sema action on the return statement of > get_return_object should take care of removing this copy here, I think, I > don't see any reason it would not work here just as well as for expressions > coming from the parser. In `InitializationKind` there is a distinction between `IK_Copy` (basically `T x = init;`) and `IK_Direct` (basically `T x(init);`). I don't know how this would be related to `volatile`, but it is related to `explicit`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
