[PATCH] D88295: [Sema] Fix volatile check when test if a return object can be implicitly move

Fri Oct 30 15:36:39 PDT 2020

aaronpuchert added a comment.

In D88295#2365474 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295#2365474>, @rsmith wrote:

> ... where `X` has a volatile copy constructor and a volatile move constructor, I think we should produce the warning suggesting use of `std::move`.

If I read this correctly, we'd have a false negative with this patch, which is probably Ok given that this is an odd case.

In D88295#2365560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295#2365560>, @Quuxplusone wrote:

> that supports implicit move for `co_return`

Don't we already have that with D51741 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D51741>? But it's easy to get confused here.

> I would push it right now if I had permission to.

I don't read @rsmith's comment as a strong objection. Let's give @nullptr.cpp a chance to react to the suggestions both of you had about where to place the test (sorry about my silly suggestions earlier, I just grepped around and didn't read it). Then I think this is fine.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D88295