[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#695350, @klimek wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#693165, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > I think we should refactor this check as part of Static Analyzer, since > > it's path-sensitive. > > > Are you saying it should be p

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL297272: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion (authored by mboehme). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650?vs=90692&id=90997#toc Repository: rL LLVM https://revi

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

mboehme added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#695350, @klimek wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#693165, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > I think we should refactor this check as part of Static Analyzer, since > > it's path-sensitive. > > > Are you saying it should be path sen

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#693165, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > I think we should refactor this check as part of Static Analyzer, since it's > path-sensitive. Are you saying it should be path sensitive? Because currently it's not, right? https://reviews.llvm.org/D

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

alexfh added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#693165, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > I think we should refactor this check as part of Static Analyzer, since it's > path-sensitive. We can think about trying this as a SA checker, but it's irrelevant to this patch. https://reviews.llvm.

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. I think we should refactor this check as part of Static Analyzer, since it's path-sensitive. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailm

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

mboehme added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650#693136, @alexfh wrote: > LG. So you won the flappy column game? ;) I hope so... ;) https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.ll

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

alexfh accepted this revision. alexfh added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LG. So you won the flappy column game? ;) https://reviews.llvm.org/D30650 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.ll

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

mboehme created this revision. Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. I've added a test case that (without the fix) triggers the assertion, which happens when a move happens in an implicitly called conversion operator. This patch also fixes nondeterministic behavior in the source code location

[PATCH] D30650: [clang-tidy] misc-use-after-move: Fix failing assertion

mboehme added inline comments. Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-use-after-move.cpp:285 // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: 'a' used after it was moved - // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-3]]:6: note: move occurred here + // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-3]]:7: note: move occurred