rsmith added a comment.
I think we need to take this to the C++ committee. For example, consider a case
like:
struct A {
using T1 = void(*)();
using T2 = int;
operator T1();
operator T2();
};
struct B {
A a;
friend auto operator<=>(B, B) = default;
};
Under the standard rules, the `operator<=>` is deleted due to ambiguity, but
with this change we'd unambiguously pick the conversion to `T2`. The old
behavior here better matches the current standard wording -- in particular, the
special case is in [class.compare.default]/3.2 and only applies when neither
operand is of overloadable type -- but perhaps the right approach here would be
to fix the language rules so that `operator<=>` is only provided for object
pointer types, not for all pointer types, in general.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103855/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103855
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
