hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/modernize/MakeSmartPtrCheck.cpp:304
+ // e.g. Foo(Bar{1, 2}), the Bar init-list constructor is wrapped around
+ // an elidable move constructor.
+ if (CEArg->isElidable()) {
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> Isn't it the other way round -- the move constructor is around the init-list
> constructor?
yeah, this is what I mean, updated the comment.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/modernize-make-unique.cpp:1
-// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++14 %s modernize-make-unique %t -- -- -I
%S/Inputs/modernize-smart-ptr
-// FIXME: Fix the checker to work in C++17 mode.
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++14,c++17 %s modernize-make-unique %t -- --
-I %S/Inputs/modernize-smart-ptr
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> "-std=c++14-or-later" (will also cover c++2a etc.)
hmm, the test code has some compiler errors on c++2a mode, it is a different
issue (I will address it in a follow-up), added a FIXME.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/modernize-make-unique.cpp:457
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:28: warning: use std::make_unique instead
- // CHECK-FIXES: std::unique_ptr<J> PJ2 = std::make_unique<J>(E{1, 2}, 1);
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::unique_ptr<J> PJ2 = std::unique_ptr<J>(new J(E{1, 2},
1));
PJ2.reset(new J(E{1, 2}, 1));
----------------
gribozavr wrote:
> Why do we print the warning if the fixit is not fixing anything?
We may still want to inform users, these cases can still be converted to
`make_unique`, but the check currently is not smart enough to give correct
fixes.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62736/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62736
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
