[SYCL][NFC] Drop confusing std::move
#20455
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Input argument for this `std::move` is `const &`, meaning that the result is `const &&`. `std::vector` does not have a move constructor from `const &&` and therefore it fallbacks to regular copy constructor taking `const &`. Dropped that `std::move` to better describe what actually happens there. As a side effect, this change should help Coverity to stop stubmling upon this and complaining that some object is used after it was moved (see CID `535422`).
AlexeySachkov
had a problem deploying
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Failure
KseniyaTikhomirova
approved these changes
Oct 24, 2025
AlexeySachkov
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
AlexeySachkov
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
AlexeySachkov
added a commit
to AlexeySachkov/llvm
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
This is similar to intel#20455 - there is a bunch of places where we call `std::move(const obj &)`, but target classes do not provide `obj(const &&)` move constructors, falling back to regular `obj(const &)` copy constructor, thus making the `std::move` useless and confusing. This should also help clean up the Coverity scan (https://scan.coverity.com/projects/intel-llvm?tab=overview), see CIDs `535398`, `535480`, `535420` and `535554`. By some reason Coverity thinks that we are using a moved object, whilst in fact no moves were performed, only copies.
AlexeySachkov
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2025
This is similar to #20455 - there is a bunch of places where we call `std::move(const obj &)`, but target classes do not provide `obj(const &&)` move constructors, falling back to regular `obj(const &)` copy constructor, thus making the `std::move` useless and confusing. This should also help clean up the Coverity scan (https://scan.coverity.com/projects/intel-llvm?tab=overview), see CIDs `535398`, `535480`, `535420` and `535554`. By some reason Coverity thinks that we are using a moved object, whilst in fact no moves were performed, only copies.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Input argument for this
std::moveisconst &, meaning that the result isconst &&.std::vectordoes not have a move constructor fromconst &&and therefore it fallbacks to regular copy constructor takingconst &.Dropped that
std::moveto better describe what actually happens there. As a side effect, this change should help Coverity to stop stubmling upon this and complaining that some object is used after it was moved (see CID535422).