aaron.ballman added a comment. In D96215#2550227 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96215#2550227>, @NoQ wrote:
> In D96215#2548492 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96215#2548492>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Should structured bindings be treated similarly as well (not necessarily as >> part of this patch)? > > Umm, looks like we're both missing the elephant in the room: passing a > variable into a function by reference. Additionally, pointers to non-const objects. I had assumed both of these were intentionally out-of-scope because of flow sensitivity though. > int &hidden_reference(int &x) { > return x; > } > > void test_hidden_reference() { > int x = 0; > int &y = hidden_reference(x); > for (; x < 10; ++y) { // Warns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > } > } > > With this taken care of, I hope structured bindings will be handled > automatically because whatever's unwrapped couldn't have obtained a reference > to our local variable without going through a function first (eg., the > constructor). Unless there's some aggregate magic going on... but in this > case, again, we have to take care of aggregate magic and structured bindings > aren't at fault. FWIW, I was thinking of code like: https://godbolt.org/z/jK53G5 but, I don't think it needs to be handled right now in this patch. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
