cjdb added a comment.
Thanks for working on this! I'm overall very happy, but I don't see a test case
for a unary `move` originating from another namespace.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:6422
+static void DiagnosedUnqualifiedCallsToStdFunctions(Sema &S, CallExpr *Call) {
+ // We are only checking move and forward so exit early here
+ if (Call->getNumArgs() != 1)
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp:6442
+ static constexpr llvm::StringRef SpecialFunctions[] = {"move", "forward"};
+ auto it = std::find(std::begin(SpecialFunctions), std::end(SpecialFunctions),
+ D->getName());
----------------
There's a range-based `llvm::find` in `llvm/STLExtras.h`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-self-move.cpp:19
using std::move;
+ x = move(x); // expected-warning{{explicitly moving}} \
----------------
Perhaps this should warn if the algorithm `std::move` isn't seen by the
compiler (that isn't a request for this patch).
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-self-move.cpp:20-21
using std::move;
- x = move(x); // expected-warning{{explicitly moving}}
+ x = move(x); // expected-warning{{explicitly moving}} \
+ expected-warning {{unqualified call to std::move}}
}
----------------
Rationale: there's less mental gymnastics when backslashes aren't involved.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-self-move.cpp:30-31
using std::move;
- global = move(global); // expected-warning{{explicitly moving}}
+ global = move(global); // expected-warning{{explicitly moving}} \
+ expected-warning {{unqualified call to std::move}}
}
----------------
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119670/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119670
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
