usaxena95 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:1169
+ Result.emplace_back(render(std::move(*Ranges)));
+ return Reply(std::move(Result));
+ });
----------------
hokein wrote:
> does `Reply({render(std::move(*Ranges))});` work?
List initialization of vector of move only types is painful 😃
Even this does not work:
`Reply(std::vector<SelectionRange>{render(std::move(*Ranges))});` because I
think it vector tries to copy construct it because of initializer_lists
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Protocol.h:1251
+ SelectionRange() = default;
+ SelectionRange(SelectionRange &&) = default;
+};
----------------
hokein wrote:
> Are these constructors needed?
We don't need them if we use just unique_ptr. They were needed before in
Optional<unique_ptr>. Somehow it was not able to deduce this is a
trivially-constructible + move only class.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67720/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67720
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
