Sockke marked 8 inline comments as done. Sockke added a comment. In D107450#2938824 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107450#2938824>, @MTC wrote:
> I think we're a bit off track, and @Sockke wants to accomplish more than one > goal in the same patch. I have summarized what we are currently discussing as > follow shows: > > 1. Fix the wrong AutoFix which blocks the compilation. > 2. Find more 'unrecommended' std::move usage and give correct warning > messages. > 3. Whether template should be taken into account. > > In addition, I would like to mention that we need to ensure that this check > should be consistent with `-Wpessimizing-move`, see > https://reviews.llvm.org/D7633, which has done the perfect job. > > I suggest that this patch be divided into two patches. In the current patch, > fix the **wrong AutoFix**. What the current check should look like is left in > the second patch for discussion. @Sockke do you mind simplifying this patch > and only achieving the first goal? Yes, I originally wanted to make some improvements on the premise of keeping the old version of the idea. As Quuxplusone said, this improvement still does not meet the final requirements, which may require rewriting the entire checker. Any other thoughts? @Quuxplusone,@aaron.ballman,@whisperity,@alexfh CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107450/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107450 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
