http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8105
Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> 2011-10-09 16:24:08 CDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Again, if there is some reason we do not want _has_trivial_copy(T) to model > > the > > behavior intended for std::has_copy_constructor<T>, then I can work around > > it > > in the library (libc++). Just it would be simpler to drop straight through. > > I'd prefer to have __has_trivial_copy(T) model the behavior of > std::has_copy_constructor<T>. It's a better specification than "what GCC > does", > and more useful besides. Older and wiser, I now think that it's better to follow GCC's specification to improve compatibility, even though it's suboptimal for libc++. Clang is already following GCC's specification, documented here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Type-Traits.html -- Configure bugmail: http://llvm.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
