vbvictor wrote:
Did you try running this check on some codebases? The easiest way is to run it
on `clang-tidy` itself. E.g.
```
python3 clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -p build/
-checks="-*,performance-lost-std-move" -clang-tidy-binary build/bin/clang-tidy
-quiet -hide-progress clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/
```
I found such case:
```
/home/victor/llvm2/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/llvm/UseNewMLIROpBuilderCheck.cpp:32:25:
warning: could be std::move() [performance-lost-std-move]
32 | std::move(CallArgs)](const MatchFinder::MatchResult
&Result)
| ^~~~~~~~
| std::move(CallArgs)
/home/victor/llvm2/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/TransformerClangTidyCheck.cpp:82:21:
warning: could be std::move() [performance-lost-std-move]
82 | setRule(std::move(R));
| ^
| std::move(R)
```
The check doesn't consider already `std::move` variables?
Also, there are many "false positives" where the check suggest to use
`std::move` when passing variable as function parameter, but function only
accept `const&` and
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance/move-const-arg.html
start giving warning. I think we should avoid these false positive also.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139525
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
