aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D135557#3871482 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557#3871482>, @dblaikie wrote:
> I was hoping the rephrasing (is this really a question about which ctors the
> type has, or about how the type can be constructible) might offer us a way
> out for this use case, at least - if it's about how the type is
> constructible, then the AST wouldn't be the ideal/complete solution anyway
> and we could move more towards exposing the 5 special member ops as "can I do
> this thing/would this expression be valid".
FWIW, I'm about 99% sure there's no way to do that without use of `Sema`, which
would require significant work to expose to the C indexing APIs and to AST
matchers. At the AST level, we have "does this type have these methods" but it
requires semantic analysis to determine whether something is copy constructible
or not. e.g.,
struct S {
S(S&) {}
};
This class has a usable copy constructor, yet it is not copy constructible per
the type trait: https://godbolt.org/z/srefPjzxj
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
