BRevzin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/conditionally-trivial-smfs.cpp:39
+
+template struct DefaultConstructorCheck<2>;
+// CHECK: "kind": "ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl",
----------------
royjacobson wrote:
> 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.
>
One of the motivations for the paper is to ensure that like given:
```
template <class T>
struct optional {
optional(optional const&) requires copyable<T> && trivially_copyableT> =
default;
optional(optional const&) requires copyable<T>;
};
```
`optional<string>` is copyable (but not trivially copyable), `optional<int>` is
trivially copyable, and `optional<unique_ptr<int>>` isn't copyable. I'm not
sure what in here checks if that works.
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
