Prazek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23353#516314, @mboehme wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23353#511362, @Prazek wrote: > > > I will review it later, but my first thoughts: > > > > 1. I think we should make some other group, because misc seems to be > > overloaded. I discussed it with Alex months ago - something like bugprone > > would be good. > > > Agree that "misc" seems pretty overcrowded. I'll defer to those who have been > working on clang-tidy longer than me to make this call. > > > 2. Also it would be good to make link in cppcoreguidelines. > > > How exactly would I create such a "link"? Are you just thinking of a link in > the documentation, or is there a way to have one clang-tidy check activate > another (and is this what you're thinking of)? I am not sure if there is any other mechanism than just links in documentation. In the perfect word it would be nice to invoke this check using cppcoreguidelines-use-after-move also with some special options like Pedantic=1 (That would warn about any use after move, even after reinitialization - this is what cppcoreguidelines says) ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UseAfterMoveCheck.cpp:134 @@ +133,3 @@ +/// various internal helper functions). +class UseAfterMoveFinder { +public: ---------------- What do you think about moving this, and maybe other things to some different header file to make it not so scary? ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/UseAfterMoveCheck.cpp:649-652 @@ +648,6 @@ + FunctionBody = ContainingFunc->getBody(); + } + + if (!FunctionBody) + return; + ---------------- you can replace it with else return; ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-use-after-move.cpp:504-505 @@ +503,4 @@ + std::move(a); + a = A(); + a.foo(); + } ---------------- I would like to mark it as use after move with some pedantic flag https://reviews.llvm.org/D23353 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
