cor3ntin added a comment. In D126194#3531267 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126194#3531267>, @erichkeane wrote:
> How much of P0848 is missing after this? If nothing/not much, should we > update cxx_status.html as well? P0848 applies to all special member function. At best we could mark it partial but most of the work still need to be done. I gave a shot to P0848 a few months ago, but my assesment is that clang might have to significantly refactor of special member functions to do that cleanly ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiate.cpp:2330 + /// To achieve that, we remove all non-selected destructors from the AST, + /// which is a bit unusual. We can't let those declarations be in AST and rely + /// on LookupSpecialMember to return the correct declaration because a lot of ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > I don't think this ends up being acceptable (removing them from the AST). > Instead, we should probably mark them as "invalid" and update getDestructor > to only return the 'only' destructor, or the first not-invalid one. I'd rather we stay consistent with the wording, keep track of a selected destructor which would be returned by `getDestructor`. it's more surgery but it's a lot cleaner imo Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126194/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126194 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
