NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47671#1127486, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Just for the record, there is a common example where relying on copy elision > might bite and google do not recommend relying on it for correctness: > https://abseil.io/tips/120 > > The main purpose of sharing is to add some more context to the discussion, I > do not consider this to be an argument, because I can still see that this > practice as opinionated. Ah, NRVO, thanks for pointing it out! We can't do that yet, this patch only enables simple RVO. Also it seems that NRVO isn't mandatory even in C++17. In any case, it's clear that relying on any sort of copy elision should be treated as a bug, but not necessarily a high-priority bug, and i'm not seeing any better way of detecting this bug other than suggesting the user to run a separate analysis with copy elision disabled and see if any of our usual kinds of bugs are found. P.S. It seems that one of my currently-on-review patches has introduced a performance regression, i'm investigating it. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
