aaron.ballman added a comment. In D123909#3462791 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909#3462791>, @rsmith wrote:
> 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. Based on the amount of code broken thus far, I tend to agree that P2036R3 should not be a DR (or perhaps retracted entirely for C++23 until these issues are addressed by the paper author). But I agree that we need more information on the scope of the breakages, which is why I was sad to see all of this reverted without prior discussion. 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
