rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:23
+def warn_return_std_move : Warning<
+ "adding 'std::move' here would select a better conversion sequence">,
+ InGroup<ReturnStdMove>, DefaultIgnore;
----------------
Can we say something like "local variable '%0' will be copied despite being
%select{returned|thrown}1 by name; call 'std::move' explicitly to avoid the
copy"? (Would that be accurate, given the implementation of the warning?)
Ideally, we'd move the "call 'std::move' explicitly" hint to a separate note
diagnostic and include a FixItHint on that diagnostic to insert the call to
`std::move`.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:27
+def warn_return_std_move_in_cxx11 : Warning<
+ "adding 'std::move' here would have selected a better conversion sequence
prior to CWG 1579">,
+ InGroup<ReturnStdMoveInCXX11>, DefaultIgnore;
----------------
I think the wording of this diagnostic could be improved too. It's very
language-lawyer-friendly right now. Here's one possible starting point for
alternative wording (though I think maybe we can do better):
"ISO C++11, prior to the resolution of defect reports, would have made a copy
of local variable '%0' despite it being returned by name due to a type mismatch
with the return value%diff{ ($ vs $)|}1, 2"
... plus a "note: call 'std::move' explicitly to avoid a copy when using older
compilers" or similar, with a fixit.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43322
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
