shuaiwang added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883#1203690, @JonasToth wrote:
> I am suprised that this does not automatically follow from the general rules. > At the end, smartpointers cant do anything else then 'normal' classes. > > The `operator+/->` were not handled before? The mutation of `SmartPtr x; > x->mf();` should already be catched, not? Different from `std::vector::operator[]` which has two overloads for const and non-const access, `std::unique_ptr` only has one const version of `operator->`. So for `SmartPtr x; x->mf();` we only see a const operator being invoked on `x`. `mf` is not a member of `SmartPtr` and the member call to `mf` is not on `x` directly, we never followed that far. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D50883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
