@@ -7894,13 +7895,18 @@ bool
Sema::CheckExplicitlyDefaultedSpecialMember(CXXMethodDecl *MD,
if (ShouldDeleteForTypeMismatch || ShouldDeleteSpecialMember(MD, CSM)) {
if (First) {
SetDeclDeleted(MD, MD->getLocation());
- if (!inTemplateInstantiation() &&
@@ -7894,13 +7895,18 @@ bool
Sema::CheckExplicitlyDefaultedSpecialMember(CXXMethodDecl *MD,
if (ShouldDeleteForTypeMismatch || ShouldDeleteSpecialMember(MD, CSM)) {
if (First) {
SetDeclDeleted(MD, MD->getLocation());
- if (!inTemplateInstantiation() &&
AaronBallman wrote:
> > which also begs the question as to what change actually caused this to break
>
> Since I’m not sure how that is usually done here, is bisecting a reasonable
> approach? I’m asking because rebuilding a project the size of Clang
> unfortunately ends up taking a rather
Sirraide wrote:
> which also begs the question as to what change actually caused this to break
Since I’m not sure how that is usually done here, is bisecting a reasonable
approach? I’m asking because rebuilding a project the size of Clang
unfortunately ends up taking a rather substantial
Sirraide wrote:
CC @shafik, @erichkeane, @AaronBallman
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80959
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: None (Sirraide)
Changes
Sema would incorrectly skip diagnosing a malformed use of `= default` on an
implcitly deleted move constructor while performing template instantiation,
even if we were about to then generate a definition of said
https://github.com/Sirraide created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80959
Sema would incorrectly skip diagnosing a malformed use of `= default` on an
implcitly deleted move constructor while performing template instantiation,
even if we were about to then generate a definition of
