efriedma added a comment.
I'm concerned we're going to run into trouble if two people define different
SVE "libraries", and you try to link both of them into the same program. If
you're not careful, you end up with ODR violations. The scope of this is sort
of restricted in normal C++: class and enumerated types sort of have an
informal "owner", and people tend to respect that. I mean, you could say it's
the user's own fault if they break ODR, but we're essentially making a trap
here. Maybe it would make sense to require that SVE operators are defined in a
namespace? That would make the user think about the issue.
We're also basically committing to never building these operators into the
compiler, for all sizeless types for all targets.
It would probably make sense to send this to cfe-dev, to get more perspectives
on the language change.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Type.h:6833
inline bool Type::isOverloadableType() const {
- return isDependentType() || isRecordType() || isEnumeralType();
+ return (isDependentType() || isRecordType() || isEnumeralType() ||
+ isSizelessBuiltinType());
----------------
Unnecessary parentheses
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/sizeless-1.cpp:659
+svint8_t &operator--(svint8_t &, int);
+int operator,(svint8_t, svint8_t);
+
----------------
Need some testcases with template operators.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77056/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77056
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
