erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3940898 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818#3940898>, @dfrib wrote:
> In D126818#3935740 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818#3935740>, @rjmccall > wrote: > >> I'm too often slow to actually apply edits to the ABI document. There's >> been plenty of time for feedback on this one; go ahead and act like it's >> accepted. > > CWG 2596 was discussed at Kona and, afaict, CWG is opting for a path of least > effort, with a different result <https://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue2596> than > what is implemented this patch and previously discussed in the ABI issue > <https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/24#issuecomment-934713719>: > >> **CWG 2022-11-10** >> >> The friend definitions should conflict with friend definitions from other >> instantiations of the same class template, consistent with how >> non-constrained friends would work. Note that the enclosing dependent class >> type does not appear in the friend function's signature, which is unusual. Can you clarify the difference here? What did we choose different? The example from that CWG issue is exactly in the test for this (see the top of `useS`) so I'm not sure what difference we're missing? Can you clarify what I'm not matching here? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
