zahiraam added a comment. In D99005#2844365 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005#2844365>, @mizvekov wrote:
> In D99005#2844332 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005#2844332>, @zahiraam wrote: > >> This change has made this snippet fail. >> https://godbolt.org/z/3ehK784hY Pass >> https://godbolt.org/z/9q48WvsP7 fails. > > Hello! > That is expected breakage from the changes proposed in P2266 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/P2266>. > With simpler implicit move, we no longer have a fallback second overload > resolution where the return expression would be an l-value and would thus > bind to that non-const copy constructor. > You can work that around by introducing an explicit cast to lvalue reference, > like this: https://godbolt.org/z/EhYbhYjch > > But is this example a reduction from a real world code base? > The committee wants feedback and we are interested how hard you believe this > change affects you. Yes that's a reduced test from a test suite. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
