Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:2953
+ "have bases of non-trivial class types|have virtual bases|"
+ "have __weak fields under ARC|have fields of non-trivial class types}0">;
----------------
ahatanak wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > nit: "of non-trivial class types" should be "of non-trivial class type" in
> > both places.
> >
> > And I would write "are not move-constructible" rather than "don't have
> > non-deleted copy/move constructors". Double negations aren't non-bad.
> >
> > Actually I would rephrase this as `'trivial_abi' is disallowed on this
> > class because it %select{is not move-constructible|is polymorphic|has a
> > base of non-trivial class type|has a virtual base|has a __weak field|has a
> > field of non-trivial class type}`, i.e., we're not just giving information
> > about "classes" in general, we're talking about "this class" specifically.
> > We could even name the class if we're feeling generous.
> Does not being move-constructible imply that the class doesn't have a
> *public* copy or move constructor that isn't deleted? If it does, that is
> slightly different than saying the copy and move constructors of the class
> are all deleted. When the users see the message "is not move-constructible",
> they might think the copy or move constructor that isn't deleted has to be
> public in order to annotate the class with `trivial_abi`. For `trivial_abi`,
> a private one is good enough.
>
> I think your other suggestions are all good ideas.
> Does not being move-constructible imply that the class doesn't have a
> *public* copy or move constructor that isn't deleted?
Yeah, I suppose so. Okay.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57626/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57626
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
