higher-performance wrote: > > I've seen reports from users who were confused about a > > bugprone-use-after-move diagnostic they were getting because "there is no > > move in my code". > > Could you give some examples that are confusing to read. > > By default the check does not use any custom invalidation functions, so the > must have been specified explicitly or..?
Yes, these were explicitly specified. The error messages themselves aren't necessarily confusing, it's just that the name of the check also shows up, and people assume there has to be a move because the name of the check has move in it, when the invalidation occurs due to something else like close() or free(). I'm not really sure what to do about this given the check is basically identical regardless of the name of the function. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170346 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
