carlosgalvezp accepted this revision. carlosgalvezp added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone/dangling-handle.cpp:55-56 - operator basic_string_view() const noexcept; + typedef basic_string_view str_view; + operator str_view() const noexcept; ---------------- PiotrZSL wrote: > carlosgalvezp wrote: > > Right now the test will no longer test classes that have the conversion > > operator written explicitly instead of via typedef. Do you think it's worth > > keeping the other implementation as well, or can we safely assume that > > `basic_string` is always implemented like this? > Both GCC (__sv_type) & Clang (__self_view) implement this using typedef. > But code will work fine also without typedef. > > But code will work fine also without typedef. I guess we can't know if this will hold in the future unless we have an explicit test for it :) But I agree it's probably unlikely and if we had implemented this from scratch copying the pattern from GCC or Clang directly we would have ended up with this result. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148418/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148418 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
