================
@@ -287,3 +287,18 @@ std::span<int> test2() {
return abc; // expected-warning {{address of stack memory associated with
local variable}}
}
} // namespace ctor_cases
+
+namespace GH106372 {
+class [[gsl::Owner]] Foo {};
+class [[gsl::Pointer]] FooView {};
+
+template <typename T>
+struct StatusOr {
+ template <typename U = T>
+ StatusOr& operator=(U&& v [[clang::lifetimebound]]);
+};
+
+void test(StatusOr<FooView> foo) {
+ foo = Foo(); // expected-warning {{object backing the pointer foo will be
destroyed at the end}}
----------------
Xazax-hun wrote:
I am actually a bit split on this code snippet. I think this is probably fine
in most cases, but I wonder if this is prone to false positives. We only know
that `FooView` is a pointer, but strictly speaking we have no idea what
`StatusOr` is doing. We could have an explicit specialization for
`StatusOr<FooView>` that actually stores a `Foo` inside instead of `FooView`.
Is that good practice? Absolutely not. I am just wondering if this is justified
enough for an on by default warning. (Same goes for the initialization case,
not just the assignment.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106997
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
