alexfh wrote:
> This is mostly just a call to coordinate a bit better. I would suggest that
> if the patch author is engaged on the thread, it would make sense to tell
> them the schedule on which you plan to revert so they have an opportunity to
> tell you if that's going to be disruptive.
DimitryAndric wrote:
FWIW I think I just hit this when building llvm itself (though 15.0.6) with a
recent clang, and getting:
```text
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/llvm15/work-default/llvm-project-15.0.7.src/llvm/tools/sancov/sancov.cpp:532:44:
error: chosen constructor is explicit in
erichkeane wrote:
>As I understood the author, more time was needed to prepare the tests and the
>fix. I just tried to bring the tip of the tree to a good state soon (our
>internal release process was blocked on this) without putting any pressure on
>the author.
Typically when the author is
erichkeane wrote:
> I'll go ahead and revert the commit for now. My local test run has just
> finished with no new errors. Feel free to recommit with the new test cases
> and the fix.
Doing a revert like this during our release process is actually quite a
disturbance, particularly when the
cor3ntin wrote:
@MitalAshok Could you look at that today? Otherwise we need to revert - both in
main and in the 18 branch
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -1568,19 +1568,37 @@ TryUserDefinedConversion(Sema , Expr *From, QualType
ToType,
// called for those cases.
if (CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor
= dyn_cast(ICS.UserDefined.ConversionFunction)) {
- QualType FromCanon
-=
alexfh wrote:
Actually, on the second look it doesn't seem to be too ambiguous to me. I
*think* `std::vector` should be a strictly better match in this case.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
alexfh wrote:
We've started seeing `call to constructor of 'SomeType' is ambiguous` errors
after this patch on some code. In the case I closely inspected the code looks
like https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/3MbWf69cx:
```
#include
struct A {
A() {}
};
struct B {
explicit B(A);
explicit
MitalAshok wrote:
@cor3ntin Still waiting for Windows checks, but yes, could you merge if you
please
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
MitalAshok wrote:
@cor3ntin It looks like it was in an unrelated file. I've rebased and the
format check is passing now
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
>From 644ec10fc357f70ca8af94ae6544e9631021eb5e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 20:07:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [SemaCXX] Implement CWG2137 (list-initialization from
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
>From 344366c3f749c43376aca09c5bd563ec823b76f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 20:07:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [SemaCXX] Implement CWG2137 (list-initialization from
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
>From 7b6bd8158ecc4645e26ec2f6fd6e7c5215bb038a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 20:07:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [SemaCXX] Implement CWG2137 (list-initialization from
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
15 matches
Mail list logo
