aaron.ballman added a comment. Do we need to gate this on use of `-fms-compatibility` as well? I'm not certain how cygwin factors in where it's sort of gcc and sort of msvc (perhaps the triple is sufficient for that?).
================ Comment at: clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp:892 + if ((!Method->isDeleted() && !Method->isDefaulted() && + SMKind != SMF_MoveAssignment) || + (getLangOpts().getClangABICompat() <= ---------------- Ah, it took me a moment to realize that move assignment is called out here but not move construction because move construction is handled above. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/class-layout.cpp:663-665 +_Static_assert(_Alignof(t2) == 4, ""); +#else +_Static_assert(_Alignof(t2) == 1, ""); ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > This doesn't compile under the first `RUN` line which uses C++98, I think? Ah, fair point. I don't have a strong opinion, but you could do `-Dstatic_assert=_Static_assert` for that RUN line and not use the extension version. But it doesn't matter for the test functionality, so whichever approach sparks the most joy for you is fine by me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
