aaron.ballman added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784#220654, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Ping? > > FWIW, this patch almost caught a bug in LLVM. ;-) DependenceAnalysis.h has a > class: FullDependence which would suffer from this problem if the Dependence > base class did not accidentally suppress creation of the move constructor by > defaulting only the copy constructor. (Separate patch forthcoming.) I think > that may be a reasonable option for this patch to test for, but wasn't quite > certain. What do others think? Do you think that this patch should have an option for the case where the initialization cannot use a move constructor because the default one is deleted? ~Aaron http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
