royjacobson marked 4 inline comments as done and an inline comment as not done. royjacobson added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:17960-17961 + } + if (AnotherMethodIsMoreConstrained) + break; + } ---------------- cor3ntin wrote: > Is that codepath ever taken? > I wonder if there is a way to do that that is not n^2. Maybe not. It's not, I didn't mean to leave it there. Thanks for the catch :) Generally finding a maximal set in a partial ordering is O(n^2) in the worst case which is when no two objects are comparable. We could optimize this a bit for some cases: We can group the functions by their kind, and we can skip comparing functions if we already know that they are not maximal. But since the number of SMFs expected in a class is very (1-3) small, I didn't think those possible improvements are worth the extra complexity. Another possible optimization is we could short-circuit this evaluation if we know that a type is not trivially [copyable], since that's the only outcome we really care about, but then the AST is left in a very awkward state. ================ Comment at: clang/test/AST/conditionally-trivial-smfs.cpp:39 + +template struct DefaultConstructorCheck<2>; +// CHECK: "kind": "ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl", ---------------- BRevzin wrote: > It's possible that I just don't understand what these tests actually mean > but... where is the test for `DefaultConstructorCheck<2>` having a deleted > default constructor, or `DefaultConstructorCheck<3>` having a non-defaulted > one? > > It'd also be worthwhile to have at least one test with constaints that > subsume each other instead of being mutually exclusive. Should I check this? Except destructors, the other SMFs are found during overload resolution using the usual lookup that already takes into account delete/default/constraints etc. This patch is about making sure that we set the triviality attributes correctly according to the eligible functions, so this is what I added tests for. Most of this testing is done in the sema test, but I need this AST test as well to make sure we get the `canPassInRegisters` attribute correctly - we're doing some custom processing over the functions without the usual type attributes because there are some weird compatibility edge cases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
