alexfh added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784#224424, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784#220654, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > Do you think that this patch should have an option for the case where the > initialization cannot use a move constructor because the default one is > deleted? Does it make sense to warn if the move constructor can't be used anyway? I'm not sure. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11784 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
