xazax.hun added a comment. In D66486#1640203 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486#1640203>, @mgehre wrote:
> In the false-positive example, after the `DerivedToBase`, we see a > constructor call which I think is the copy constructor. Yeah, but we do not have problems with the copy constructors. > 1. We should consider `MutableArrayRef` to be a gsl::Pointer according to the > paper, because it publicly derives from one. So as soon as the user annotate a type as gsl::Pointer, this annotation should be applied to all derived classes? It would solve this particular issue. Also it feels a bit weird to change the ownership semantics in a derived class, I bet that would violate the Liskov substitution principle. > 2. Also in the paper, the copy constructor does should copies the pset of the > argument instead of making the pointer point at the argument. This is exactly what the warnings are doing now. If the first gsl::Pointer is constructed from a second gsl::Pointer, we will just check if the second gsl::Pointer will dangle at the and of the expression and so on. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
