rsmith added a comment. In D123909#3462560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909#3462560>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> This looks like a true positive to me, at least for the moment (Core is still > trying to decide what to do about CWG2569 which may relax some restrictions > in this area). > > @MaskRay -- your revert was incorrect, please un-revert. It sounds to me like this change is causing a substantial amount of breakage for real code, which might suggest that applying it retroactively by default is not in the best interests of our users. I think we need more information here on the scope of the breakages, but it might make sense to suggest that CWG reconsiders treating this as a DR. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
