NoQ added a comment. I'm glad you brought this stuff up, found two more bugs to fix.
In D54563#1317678 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54563#1317678>, @Szelethus wrote: > Can you add tests for that just in case? :) The test works, but i noticed that we aren't respecting const references. That is, we believe that passing the object by const reference or pointer may reset it. I guess i'll make a separate commit. ================ Comment at: test/Analysis/use-after-move.cpp:260-262 for (int i = 0; i < bignum(); i++) { // expected-note {{Loop condition is false. Execution jumps to the end of the function}} rightRefCall(std::move(a)); // no-warning } ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > This would have been the test for our case, but in this test the function > > has a body and will not be evaluated conservatively. > Hmm, since those are all STL containers, we should be able to have their > definition? Or only with `c++-container-inlining=true`? Take this as more of > a question than anything else. Yeah, assuming that we only need containers. As usual, i expect only good things to happen when we inline them. Say, if a field is overwritten in the inlined call, this would also trigger `checkRegionChanges`. And i doubt that in these examples there will be a path through the function that leaves the object entirely untouched. As a side note, i doubt that we'll actually react to field assignment, because this checker's `checkRegionChanges` callback doesn't account for that: it only iterates through explicit regions. I guess this needs fixing. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54563/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54563 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
