NeKon69 wrote: > Currently this change will suggest lifetimebound on some constructors (with > escaping fields) but adding that annotation would go against the current > policy (see LifetimeBoundCtor test; SWithUserDefinedCopyLikeOps ctor is also > correctly annotated).
So, something like what I did initially for #201101? I mean, I don't mind going with this approach, I just don't see why would we have separate "applicable" types for return types and parameter types. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203767 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
