flx added a comment. In D90042#2357078 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2357078>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D90042#2356265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2356265>, @flx wrote: > >> In D90042#2356180 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2356180>, @aaron.ballman >> wrote: >> >>> In D90042#2350035 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042#2350035>, @flx wrote: >>> >>>> I should note that I was only able to reproduce the false positive with >>>> the actual implementation std::function and not our fake version here. >>> >>> Any reason not to lift enough of the actual definition to be able to >>> reproduce the issue in your test cases? Does the change in definitions >>> break other tests? >> >> I poured over the actual definition and couldn't find any difference wrt the >> call operator that would explain it. I would also think that: >> >> template <typename T> >> void foo(T&& t) { >> std::forward<T>(t).modify(); >> } >> >> would be a simpler case that should trigger replacement, but it doesn't. Do >> you have any idea what I could be missing? > > Perhaps silly question, but are you instantiating `foo()`? I think I added a full implementation of foo now, reverted the change, but am still not getting the negative case to fail. Can you spot an issue with the code? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90042 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
