[PATCH] D107450: [clang-tidy] Fix wrong FIxIt in performance-move-const-arg

[Arthur O'Dwyer via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Quuxplusone added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/performance-move-const-arg.cpp:262-263
+  int a = 10;
+  forwardToShowInt(std::move(a));
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: std::move of the variable 'a' of the trivially-copyable type 'int' has no effect
+}
----------------
Sockke wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > ```
> >   forwardToShowInt(std::move(a));
> >   // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: std::move of the variable 'a' of the trivially-copyable type 'int' has no effect
> > ```
> > I continue to want-not-to-block this PR, since I think it's improving the situation. However, FWIW...
> > It's good that this message doesn't contain a fixit, since there's nothing the programmer can really do to "fix" this call. But then, should this message be emitted at all? If this were `clang -Wall`, then we definitely would //not// want to emit a "noisy" warning where there's basically nothing the programmer can do about it. Does clang-tidy have a similar philosophy? Or is it okay for clang-tidy to say "This code looks wonky" even when there's no obvious way to fix it?
> > ```
> >   forwardToShowInt(std::move(a));
> >   // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:20: warning: std::move of the variable 'a' of the trivially-copyable type 'int' has no effect
> > ```
> > I continue to want-not-to-block this PR, since I think it's improving the situation. However, FWIW...
> > It's good that this message doesn't contain a fixit, since there's nothing the programmer can really do to "fix" this call. But then, should this message be emitted at all? If this were `clang -Wall`, then we definitely would //not// want to emit a "noisy" warning where there's basically nothing the programmer can do about it. Does clang-tidy have a similar philosophy? Or is it okay for clang-tidy to say "This code looks wonky" even when there's no obvious way to fix it?
> 
> Yes, I agree with you. I did not remove warning to maintain the original behavior, which will make the current patch clearer. In any case, it is easy for me to make this modification if you want. 
I'll defer on this subject to whomever you get to review the code change in `MoveConstArgCheck.cpp`. (@whisperity perhaps?)


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D107450/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D107450