aaron.ballman added a comment.
I'm definitely worried about the false positive rate for this check -- from a
quick look at the diagnostics from LLVM, every one of them is a false positive
(though perhaps I've missed something; it was a very quick look). Requiring
users to explicitly use a declaration within the operator seems like it could
get onerous for complex classes that support the notion of equality from a few
members as opposed to all members.
Also, can you add some tests for classes that inherit members, perhaps even
private ones? e.g.,
struct Base {
int Member;
};
struct Derived : Base {
int OtherMember;
bool operator==(const Derived &RHS) const { return OtherMember ==
RHS.OtherMember; }
};
struct Derived2 : private Base {
int OtherMember;
bool operator==(const Derived2 &RHS) const { return OtherMember ==
RHS.OtherMember; }
};
Another good test is for scenarios where you cannot compare all of the members,
such as:
struct Interesting {
bool operator==(const Interesting &Other) const = delete;
};
struct S {
int Member;
Interesting OtherMember;
bool operator==(const S &Other) const { return Member == Other.Member; }
};
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59103/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59103
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
