ahatanak 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">;
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> 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.
I changed the message to "its copy constructors and move constructors are all
deleted".
================
Comment at: test/SemaObjCXX/attr-trivial-abi.mm:108
+ S18(const S18 &);
+ S18(S18 &&);
+ };
----------------
The diagnostic note printed here was actually "have fields of non-trivial
class types", not "don't have non-deleted copy/move constructors", because the
class had explicitly declared copy and move constructors. I removed both
declarations to make clang print the latter.
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
