GorNishanov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/coroutines.cpp:299-311
// FIXME: The spec says this is ill-formed.
void operator=(CtorDtor&) {
co_yield 0; // expected-error {{'co_yield' cannot be used in a copy
assignment operator}}
}
void operator=(CtorDtor const &) {
co_yield 0; // expected-error {{'co_yield' cannot be used in a copy
assignment operator}}
}
----------------
modocache wrote:
> lewissbaker wrote:
> > Not related to this diff, but...
> >
> > I don't think that these should be ill-formed.
> >
> > According to N4775 there are only exclusions added for [class.ctor] and
> > [class.dtor].
> > I can't see anything in the spec that says that assignment special member
> > functions cannot be coroutines.
> That's a great point. Could you create a Bugzilla for this work? And maybe we
> can get @GorNishanov's opinion?
In 2015, such as https://wg21.link/N4499 there was a blank prohibition:
"A special member function shall not be a coroutine."
Later, at @rsmith suggestion, we relaxed it a little and banned only
constructors and destructors.
I am not yet aware of any use cases where such coroutines would be useful.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59076/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59076
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
