aaronpuchert marked 15 inline comments as done. aaronpuchert added a comment.
Given the complexities of this implementation, I'm beginning to doubt whether implicit moves make sense for `co_return` at all. Since there can never be any kind of RVO, why not always require an explicit `std::move`? Implicit moves on `return` were introduced because an explicit move would inhibit NRVO, and without move there wouldn't be a graceful fallback for implementations that don't have NRVO. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68845/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
