royjacobson added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:494-497 +- Implemented "Conditionally Trivial Special Member Functions" (`P0848 <https://wg21.link/p0848r3>`_). + Note: The handling of deleted functions is not yet compliant, as Clang + does not implement `DR1496 <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1496>`_ + and `DR1734 <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1734>`_. ---------------- h-vetinari wrote: > Is that lack of compliance worth a note in `cxx_status`? I'm not very opinionated about this, but I tend to not significant enough. I mean, 7 years later and only MSVC have even bothered to implement them. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:17875 + return true; + if (!Context.hasSameType(M1->getParamDecl(0)->getType(), + M2->getParamDecl(0)->getType())) ---------------- royjacobson wrote: > shafik wrote: > > What happens if we have further parameters with default arguments? Unless I > > am missing something they are still special member functions but the > > proposal does not seem to cover them. > That's an excellent question. > > I'm not sure what to do about default arguments. In a context where the > additional parameters matter, you're not using them as constructors anymore, > right? So why would this affect the type traits? > On the one hand [over.match.best] is against this idea of comparing > constraints when the parameters differ. So also every context where this > actually matters the overload resolution would probably be ambiguous anyway? > > @BRevzin, what do you think? Is the wording intentional to include copy/move > constructors with default arguments as well? > > I checked with GCC and they seem to handle default arguments separately: > https://godbolt.org/z/1ch3M7MjP > FWIW, I filed https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/110 I'm not on the reflector myself, so I don't know if there's been a follow-up there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
