cjdb added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/TokenKinds.def:528 +TYPE_TRAIT_1(__is_nothrow_copy_constructible, IsNothrowCopyConstructible, KEYCXX) +TYPE_TRAIT_1(__is_trivially_copy_constructible, IsTriviallyCopyConstructible, KEYCXX) TYPE_TRAIT_2(__reference_binds_to_temporary, ReferenceBindsToTemporary, KEYCXX) ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > royjacobson wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > cjdb wrote: > > > > erichkeane wrote: > > > > > So this one is a whole 'thing'. The Clang definition of 'trivially > > > > > copy constructible' is a few DRs behind. We should probably discuss > > > > > this with libcxx to make sure use of this wouldn't be broken. > > > > I'd prefer to get those DRs in before finalising D135238 and subsequent > > > > ones. Do you know the DR numbers I should be looking at, or should I > > > > just poke npaperbot? > > > Not off the top of my head, Aaron and I both poked at it at one point > > > trying to get trivially constructible right at one point, but I think we > > > both gave up due to the ABI/versioning concerns. > > Maybe DR1734? Although it's about the trivially copyable trait, not > > trivially copy constructible. > > > Yeah, I think that was the DR, that number sounds familiar. The `__is_trivially_*` traits were, in part, what inspired the Great Split of D116208. I could remove them for now and revisit once I rip my hair out over these DRs, if that would substantially improve the chances of these commits landing (other commentary notwithstanding). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135238/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135238 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
