Quuxplusone added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45163#1055957, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45163#1055856, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Well, we should feel welcome to submit patches to the C++ library > > implementations, I think. I can understand why Marshall is waiting to just > > do this until he gets a comprehensive committee paper, but he might > > consider taking a patch in the meantime. > > > That has been discussed, and it's not going to happen. Ask him if you want > more info. You say a library patch is not going to happen, but isn't that library patch literally https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179, which has been accepted (although I just left a comment explaining why the current macro-soup is suboptimal)? > TLDW: `std::move()` is "The Assign Operator (`a = b;`) of RAII". It would be > good to diagnose such a problem, and not just rely that some day the std libs > will mark it with the attribute. > BTW, even when they do, even for libcxx, it won't be of any immediate use to > LLVM, we will need to provide a define (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179) > to actually enable that attribute, because LLVM is using C++11, not > C++17/something... Yes, but that patch (which you've written in https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179) is essentially just "if C++17, `[[nodiscard]]`, else `__attribute__((warn_unused_result))`." The library vendor is completely free to mark nodiscard-ish function with [[nodiscard]] or any other attribute they want to. And if I'm not mistaken, https://reviews.llvm.org/D45179 is a step in that direction. 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
