mizvekov added a comment.
In D99005#2640121 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005#2640121>, @aaronpuchert
wrote:
> With my previous comment I meant that it's better if you leave out the
> `co_return` bits for now because it's wrong anyway. We can't use
> `PerformMoveOrCopyInitialization`. It would just generate merge conflicts.
Okay, I think I see now what you mean.
For example this:
struct task {
struct promise_type {
...
void return_value(T &&value) {}
};
};
task<NoCopyNoMove> local2val() {
NoCopyNoMove value;
co_return value;
}
We should expect the test above to work, by binding value to the rvalue
reference in task's promise, right?
Hmm, my natural course of action here would have been to figure out what is
wrong and fix it.
I thought this would be good to have implemented before the committee decides
on it.
@Quuxplusone thoughts? Is coroutine support optional here?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
