JonasToth added a comment. @Quuxplusone thank you for the input! I think it is a good idea if the library-implementors take a look at it. I myself don't have enough knowledge of C++ and the libraries to judge all this stuff. So who to ping or to add as reviewer?
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-unintended-adl.cpp:54 + move(a); + // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: expression calls 'ns::move' through ADL [bugprone-unintended-adl] + forward(a); ---------------- logan-5 wrote: > Quuxplusone wrote: > > This is awesome. :) Please also consider ADL where there's more than one > > associated namespace, something like this: https://godbolt.org/z/S73Gzy > > ``` > > template<class T> struct Templated { }; > > Templated<std::byte> testX() { > > Templated<std::byte> x; > > using std::move; > > return move(x); // "correctly" resolves to std::move today, but still > > does unintended ADL > > } > > ``` > > Please add a test isomorphic to the above, unless you think it's already > > covered by one of the existing tests. > It's interesting, that code only triggers the check (i.e. my AST matchers > only think it's doing ADL) without the `using std::move`. I admit I'm a bit > confused as to why. The matcher itself only ask the `CallExpr->usesADL()` (not sure about the method name right now, but basically that). So the reason is probably hidden somewhere in `Sema`, if the matcher is the issue. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72282 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
