mizvekov added a comment. In D98971#2644747 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98971#2644747>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> Shrink the code by one line, by introducing another local named variable. > Still hoping for an "accept" here. My two cents: Functionality-wise I think it is OK, but like I said before, I think the extra repetition / verbosity hurts more than helps. I think the suggested shortening captures the intention of the standard better: The object itself should be non-volatile, no matter if we have it by value or rvalue reference. It does not look like to me that the clang code is in general styled to spell the wording that precisely, or else those comments quoting the standard wording would not be of much use. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98971/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98971 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
