dexonsmith added a comment. In D100671#2696123 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100671#2696123>, @scott.linder wrote:
> In D100671#2695923 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100671#2695923>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> This usage doesn't seem to quite match the standard - which provides an >> existing instance of in_place_t for callers to use: >> >> std::optional<std::string> o4(std::in_place, {'a', 'b', 'c'}); >> >> (to quote https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/optional/optional ) >> >> Probably good to match this sort of behavior. > > My understanding is that the C++17 `inline constexpr` is what makes that > generally "safe" wrt. ODR, but I'm not actually sure that it come up in > practice (i.e. I don't suspect we will ever actually cause this thing to have > an address). > > Maybe I can add the variable with a note about not doing anything with it > that could cause it to violate ODR? I.e. don't take its address (and probably > other thing I need to refresh my memory on) I imagine whatever we do for `llvm::None` would be fine for `llvm::inplace` too. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100671/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
