gribozavr added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaInit.cpp:6581
+ if (!Callee->getIdentifier()) {
+ auto OO = Callee->getOverloadedOperator();
+ return OO == OverloadedOperatorKind::OO_Subscript ||
----------------
mgehre wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > If we want to relax the warnings to give more results we could extend the
> > checking of these overloaded operators for annotated types. But this would
> > imply that the user need to have the expected semantics for those types and
> > can only suppress false positives by removing some gsl:::owner/poinnter
> > annotations.
> I see those options:
> - Either gsl::Owner implies some specific form of those operators (and if
> that does not hold for a class, then one should not annotate it with
> gsl::Owner)
> - or gsl::Owner only implies some specific behavior for the "gsl::Pointer
> constructed from gsl::Owner" case and everything else requires additional
> annotation
> I expect that we will experiment a bit in the future to see what works well
> for real-world code.
I understand the difficulty, but I don't think it is appropriate to experiment
by ourselves -- these attributes are defined in a spec, and if something is not
clear, the spec should be clarified.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65127/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65127
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
