================
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+
+// Scalar types are bitwise clonable.
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(int));
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(int*));
+// array
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(int[10]));
+
+// non-scalar types.
+static_assert(!__is_bitwise_cloneable(int&));
+
+
+struct Forward; // expected-note 2{{forward declaration of 'Forward'}}
+static_assert(!__is_bitwise_cloneable(Forward)); // expected-error
{{incomplete type 'Forward' used in type trait expression}}
+
+struct Foo { int a; };
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(Foo));
+
+struct DynamicClass { virtual int Foo(); };
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(DynamicClass));
+
+struct Bar { int& b; }; // trivially copyable
+static_assert(__is_trivially_copyable(Bar));
+static_assert(__is_bitwise_cloneable(Bar));
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
I don't quite get the rule here.
If reference members make the class non-bitwise-cloneable, why isn't that
assertion firing?
If they don't, why is the next assertion a problem (the two classes only differ
by presence of constructor, which we choose to ignore in bitwise-cloneability).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86512
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
