vrnithinkumar marked an inline comment as done.
vrnithinkumar added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/smart-ptr.cpp:295
+ P->foo(); // No warning.
+}
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> vrnithinkumar wrote:
> > I was trying to test the below code.
> > ```
> > void foo_() {
> > std::unique_ptr<A> PToMove;
> > std::unique_ptr<A>&& AfterRValeRefCast =
> > std::move(functionReturnsRValueRef());
> > std::unique_ptr<A> P(AfterRValeRefCast);
> > P->foo(); // expected-warning {{Dereference of null smart pointer 'P'
> > [alpha.cplusplus.SmartPtr]}}
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > But passing the local RValue reference variable to move constructor is
> > always invoking the deleted copy constructor.
> Yeah, you still need an explicit move over it. Implicit moves don't happen
> because it's an rvalue reference, it has more to do with the anonymity of the
> object; the compiler only auto-moves when there's no possibility for
> accidental implicit use-after-move, and in presence of a named reference to
> the value, accidental implicit use-after-move is still very much possible, so
> an explicit move is required. That's not the exact rules but that's, as far
> as i understand, the logic behind the exact rules.
Okay
Thanks for the clarification.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86373/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86373
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
