PiotrZSL marked an inline comment as done. PiotrZSL added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/dangling-handle.cpp:55-56 - operator basic_string_view() const noexcept; + typedef basic_string_view str_view; + operator str_view() const noexcept; ---------------- carlosgalvezp wrote: > Right now the test will no longer test classes that have the conversion > operator written explicitly instead of via typedef. Do you think it's worth > keeping the other implementation as well, or can we safely assume that > `basic_string` is always implemented like this? Both GCC (__sv_type) & Clang (__self_view) implement this using typedef. But code will work fine also without typedef. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148418/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148418 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
