tra added a comment. This looks like one of the things we should *not* do as it affects correctness -- non-trivial constructor may be arbitrarily complex and the per-TU flag to enable this behavior is way too coarse, IMO. On the other hand, I can believe that someone somewhere did write the code and relies to NVCC accepting it.
Is there a specific use case for this, other than matching nvcc bug-for-bug? I've added Justin and Richard as reviewers for the language-lawyering input. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59647/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59647 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
