faisalv added a comment. Thanks for running with this! =)
================ Comment at: include/llvm/Support/TrailingObjects.h:352 @@ +351,3 @@ + template <size_t... Counts> + using _ = + llvm::AlignedCharArray<llvm::AlignOf<BaseTy>::Alignment, ---------------- FWIW - while I see your point - the 'underscore' as a name seems out-of-style - as compared to what i'm used to reading within the llvm/clang code-base. Personally I wouldn't mind calling it 'Type' or 'Ty'. Also what are your thoughts about instead of making it a struct (and providing a more generic solution), just making it a template alias, constrained on the enclosing TrailingTypes pack (i.e. specialized for only being able to provide an answer for the enclosing type)? For e.g - something along the lines of template<size_t ... Counts> using FixedSizeStorageType = ...totalSizeToAlloc<TrailingTypes...>(Counts...)>; ================ Comment at: include/llvm/Support/TrailingObjects.h:359 @@ +358,3 @@ + class FixedSizeStorageOwner { + public: + FixedSizeStorageOwner(BaseTy *p) : p(p) {} ---------------- What are your thoughts on having this guy be templated on <size_t ... Counts> and actually contain the Storage as a data member itself (as opposed to requiring folks to declare it - as you do for your Fixed TPL patch), and hiding the placement new under a forwarding templated constructor that forwards to BaseTy's ctors? I imagine folks could just use it then as [If BaseTy = TemplateParameterList]: TemplateParameterList::FixedSizeTrailingCounts<5> TPL(ctors-arguments); http://reviews.llvm.org/D19770 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits