arphaman added a comment.
Thanks for working on this! Please upload the patch with the full context (git
diff -U99999). It helps the reviewers :)
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48845#1158103, @alexshap wrote:
> I'm kind of interested in this fixit, but one thought which i have - probably
> it should be more conservative (i.e. fix captures by reference, integral
> types, etc) (since the code might rely on side-effects of
> copy-ctors/move-ctors or extend the lifetime of an object), but fixing only
> simple cases still seems to be useful imo. CC: @aaron.ballman , @arphaman,
Are you talking about a more conservative warning or a more conservative fixit?
If it doesn't make sense for us to have a fixit for a particular capture, does
it make sense for us to have a warning for that capture in the first place?
It would be helpful to add some tests with macros to ensure that the logic for
how the removal range is computed can handle macros. (E.g. macro that expands
to a full/partial capture, lambda in a macro).
cfe-commits mailing list