aaronpuchert added a comment. In D88295#2365474 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295#2365474>, @rsmith wrote:
> ... where `X` has a volatile copy constructor and a volatile move > constructor, I think we should produce the warning suggesting use of > `std::move`. If I read this correctly, we'd have a false negative with this patch, which is probably Ok given that this is an odd case. In D88295#2365560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295#2365560>, @Quuxplusone wrote: > that supports implicit move for `co_return` Don't we already have that with D51741 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D51741>? But it's easy to get confused here. > I would push it right now if I had permission to. I don't read @rsmith's comment as a strong objection. Let's give @nullptr.cpp a chance to react to the suggestions both of you had about where to place the test (sorry about my silly suggestions earlier, I just grepped around and didn't read it). Then I think this is fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
