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>`_. ---------------- cor3ntin wrote: > royjacobson wrote: > > 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. > We might has well, I think it's a good way to not lose track of it. Added as a footnote. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/constrained-special-member-functions.cpp:200 +// FIXME: We should not throw an error, instead SFINAE should make the constraint +// silently unsatisfied. See [temp.constr.constr]p5 +template <class T> ---------------- cor3ntin wrote: > Have you been able to investigate that? No, I haven't looked at this - we already have a bunch of those all over the code, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/48857 So I don't think this is about this patch specifically - I just call Sema::CheckFunctionConstraints and inherit its current behavior. 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
