flx added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20277#444023, @Prazek wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20277#436725, @flx wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20277#436717, @Prazek wrote: > > > > > Cool check! Did you think about sugesting std::move for rvalue references > > > if they are used once? > > > > > > Thanks! I'm not sure this fits with what a user would expect from a check > > named "unnecessary-value-param" since in this case the parameter is not > > passed by value. Would a separate check make sense for this? > > > Consider changing the name :) When I was thinking about the check for rvalue > references, I wanted to name it "*-rvalue-ref-one-use". > If it covers values also, maybe "performance-move-single-used-variable" or > "performance-variable-one-use", or "performance-disposable-object" (If I > translated it correctly). > > In my opinion there is no need to have separate check to to this, because the > user would like to have both or none. Renaming the check is a breaking change since it affects user's configurations. I'm working in a code base that doesn't allow r-value references outside of move constructors and assignment, but if you'd like to add handing the r-value reference case, that'd be great! I agree that with this change it make sense to handle r-value references here too. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20277 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
