aaron.ballman added a comment. In D90042#2356265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2356265>, @flx wrote:
> 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? Perhaps silly question, but are you instantiating `foo()`? 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
