Alcaro wrote: Yes, std::expected would be a false positive. But how would you tell apart std::expected, where a falsey object still contains something usable, from std::unique_ptr, where it does not?
One option would be simply ignore that - this warning applies to raw pointers only, not even integers. It can always be expanded later, if we can think of how. > I think we should just straight-up error on it (or at least make it a warning > that defaults to an error) I wouldn't get my hopes up, not until [forgetting a return statement](https://godbolt.org/z/nKooafrGK) errors by default. Though I do agree both _should_ error by default. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
