cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:17870
+/// parameter type and the same cv-qualifiers and ref-qualifier, if any.
+bool AreSpecialMemberFunctionsSameKind(CXXMethodDecl *M1, CXXMethodDecl *M2,
+ Sema::CXXSpecialMember CSM) {
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:17888
+/// [CWG2595], if any, are satisfied is more constrained.
+void SetEligibleMethods(Sema &S, CXXRecordDecl* Record,
+ ArrayRef<CXXMethodDecl *> Methods,
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:17960-17961
+ }
+ if (AnotherMethodIsMoreConstrained)
+ break;
+ }
----------------
royjacobson wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks, I guess this is fine, I cannot really think of a better way either
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
