ccotter marked 2 inline comments as done.
ccotter added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines/forwarding-reference-param-not-forwarded.cpp:138
+
+} // namespace negative_cases
----------------
PiotrZSL wrote:
> ccotter wrote:
> > ccotter wrote:
> > > PiotrZSL wrote:
> > > > what about when someone uses std::move instead of std::format ?
> > > > maybe some "note" for such issue ?
> > > Are you suggesting to have the tool add a special note in something like
> > >
> > > ```
> > > template <class T>
> > > void foo(T&& t) { T other = std::move(t); }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I completely followed what you were saying. Or perhaps a
> > > fixit for this specific case of using move on a forwarding reference
> > > (fixit to replace `move` with `forward`).
> > @PiotrZSL - I wasn't sure what you meant here.
> Yes, I meant that situation. But only because "forwarding reference parameter
> 't' is never forwarded inside the function body" could be confused in such
> case, where there is std::move instead of std::forward.
> But that could be ignored, or covered by other check that would simply detect
> that you doing move when you should do forward.
Ya,
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/move-forwarding-reference.html
should cover this. This new check missing-std-forward only knows how to find
code that is missing `forward`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146921/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146921
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
