flx added a comment. In D90042#2356180 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2356180>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D90042#2350035 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2350035>, @flx wrote: > >> I should note that I was only able to reproduce the false positive with the >> actual implementation std::function and not our fake version here. > > Any reason not to lift enough of the actual definition to be able to > reproduce the issue in your test cases? Does the change in definitions break > other tests? I poured over the actual definition and couldn't find any difference wrt the call operator that would explain it. I would also think that: template <typename T> void foo(T&& t) { std::forward<T>(t).modify(); } would be a simpler case that should trigger replacement, but it doesn't. Do you have any idea what I could be missing? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
