lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45163#1054994, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> `std::move` would definitely be special in this regard if there were a > pressing benefit to be gained — i.e., if people were currently getting bitten > by accidentally discarded calls of `std::move(x)`. But you haven't shown that > people are getting bitten today; in fact I think you said the opposite, > right? that there were *no* instances of this happening in the real codebases > you tested? So in that case, this diagnostic doesn't have a pressing benefit > IMHO, and Clang could safely wait for the library vendors to do the work. @Quuxplusone Like i said in the differential's description, > I have seen such a problem when reviewing https://reviews.llvm.org/D43341. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43341?vs=137245&id=139869&whitespace=ignore-most#toc Please see `clang-doc/Representation.cpp`, left hand side of that page, line `21`: static void mergeInfoBase(Info &L, Info &R) { assert(L.USR == R.USR); assert(L.Name == R.Name); if (L.Namespace.empty()) std::move(R.Namespace); // <- here ... Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D45163 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
