philnik777 wrote: > @philnik777 Do `std::move`/ `std::forward` etc actually need an abi tag? > Maybe we should simply not set a tag given that clang / gcc replace call to > these functions.
If that were always the case we could simply provide a declaration without ever defining the function, but clang and gcc don't always replace it. e.g. if you take the address (which both compilers unfortunately still allow). While it's unlikely for `std::move` specifically, it's always possible that the implementation changes and we have ABI breaks in the end, and having an ABI break vs. not allowing forward declarations of standard library functions seems like a no-brainer to me. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76596 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
