andykaylor wrote: Hi @TenHian. Thank you for contributing to the LLVM project!
I've looked over this PR, and while it is a reasonably-sized and focused change, it does appear to be at least partially AI-generated. Please review the LLVM AI policy linked in the automated response above. More substantially, the PR only addresses classes with deleted copy constructors. That is indeed what is shown in the reproducer I provided for https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/198602, but I intended for the issue to also cover cases with non-trivial, but not deleted, copy constructors. Your PR does not attempt to address that case, so it does not entirely fix the issue. If you've read the LLVM AI policy and are prepared to discuss the design and implementation choices involved in this PR. let me know and I'll be happy to continue with the review. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/199205 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
