aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49910#1187492, @mboehme wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49910#1187455, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Are you going to propose adding this attribute to libc++, or is this > > expected to only work with UDTs? > > > I don't have any experience contributing to libc++, but I think this would > make sense. > > The check currently hard-codes various member functions of classes in the > "std" namespace that do reinitializations; I'm not sure though if those can > be removed after the attribute has been added to libc++. We'd would also > presumably have to add the attribute to libstdc++ -- does it accept > Clang-only attributes? And what is the story for people using clang-tidy with > MSVC projects? (I have to admit I'm very hazy on how that works...) I ask the question because it's novel to add an attribute to Clang that's used only by clang-tidy, and I'm wondering who is expected to use that attribute to help with this check. Is it expected to be an attribute users use with their own custom datatypes and it's not needed for standards-based APIs (because we handle those some other way), or something else? As it stands, I sort of feel like this is a very heavy approach to solve an edge case -- is there a lot of evidence for re-using a moved-from object after reinitializing it? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D49910 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
