mizvekov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp:3066
- if (isCopyElisionCandidate(ReturnType, VD, CESK))
- return VD;
- return nullptr;
+static void downgradeNRVOResult(Sema::NRVOResult &Res, bool CanMove) {
+ Res.S = std::min(Res.S, CanMove ? Sema::NRVOResult::MoveEligible
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> mizvekov wrote:
> > mizvekov wrote:
> > > Quuxplusone wrote:
> > > > mizvekov wrote:
> > > > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > > > I find this name a little unclear (what do we mean by
> > > > > > "downgrade"?). Can we call this something a bit more specific, such
> > > > > > as `disallowCopyElision` or `disallowNRVO`?
> > > > > How about `demoteNRVOStatus`?
> > > > I'm with Richard here: if you mean "disallow copy elision," say so!
> > > > IMO this should be member functions of `NamedReturnInfo`, and it should
> > > > just be
> > > >
> > > > void disallowCopyElision() {
> > > > S &= ~CopyElidable; // obviously this "should" work;
> > > > } // ensure that your enum values actually make
> > > > it work
> > > >
> > > > void disallowImplicitMove() {
> > > > S = None;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The way you use it below is equivalent to e.g.
> > > >
> > > > if (VD->isExceptionVariable()) {
> > > > Info.disallowCopyElision();
> > > > if (!hasCXX20)
> > > > Info.disallowImplicitMove();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > which I think is a lot easier to puzzle out what's going on and how it
> > > > corresponds to the standardese.
> > > @Quuxplusone But I did not mean "disallow copy elision", the function
> > > will also disallow implicit move based on a parameter, so would be a bit
> > > misleading.
> > >
> > > That solution you proposed though is more repetitive and prone to error:
> > > it does not enforce the invariant that you should always disallow copy
> > > elision when disallowing implicit move.
> > > Even if you amend that to having one manipulator function which enforces
> > > the invariant, you still have two bools totaling four states, where only
> > > three states make sense.
> > >
> > > I would consider a better name though, not necessarily happy with this
> > > one either.
> > Also I did consider making this a method, but this function is more of an
> > implementation detail that is better to hide anyway.
> You can have more aptly named functions without dropping the invariant. I'd
> say you only need `disallowCopyElision` though, instead of
> `disallowImplicitMove` you could just directly overwrite with `None`.
But the dominant use case here is wanting to choose either one based on the
language mode. So the signature taking a bool is more convenient.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
