firewave wrote: > We've actually had such a check internally for a few years (suggesting to > `move` local objects, including parameters).
See #53489 and #139525 about such a check. I think moving (no pun intended) the logic for suggesting using `std::move()` into a separate check is an interested point so there would be no overlap. This is also the case with other checks which combine multiple functionalities - which makes sense if you want a "standalone" check which gives you the final state of the fixed code. But it might lead to aforementioned overlap and duplicated logic, and at some point possibly even inconsistencies. IMO only having incremental changes and requiring multiple runs until you have clean code is fine. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145871 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
